Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CALENDARS”

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 883 records · Page 49

ZAM Modeling Study to Support the Tank Closure Cesium Removal (TCCR) 1A Unit

Currently at the Savannah River Site (SRS), the Tank Closure Cesium Removal (TCCR) is an “at-tank” process designed to remove cesium from aqueous tank waste. Cesium will be removed by ion exchange using the engineered IONSIV® R9120 form of Crystalline Silicotitanate (CST) media. The current TCCR design has two columns online in a lead-lag configuration to optimize media usage and achieve the target decontamination. Once the lead column is saturated with cesium, it will be removed from service, the lag column will rotate into the lead position, and a new column with fresh ion-exchange media will be placed into the lag position. The TCCR process for cesium removal from Tank 10H is detailed in X-SOW-H- 00002. Demonstration of the system began in early calendar year 2019 with two batches of salt solution generated by dissolving saltcake in Tank 10H, followed by processing of these batches through the TCCR system. A third TCCR Tank 10H dissolved saltcake batch is scheduled for processing soon. Upon completion of the demonstration with Tank 10H dissolved saltcake, Tank 9H salt solution will be transferred to Tank 10H and subsequently processed through the TCCR unit with new CST media (referred to as R9120-B 30x60) added to new IX columns. The TCCR processing campaign of Tank 9H salt solution is referred to as TCCR-1A .

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Q1 2020)

The US. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2020 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Austin Sustainable and Holistic Integration of Energy Storage and Solar PV [Austin SHINES]. Final Report, Version 2

The Austin SHINES project and solution is a software management platform, for an electric grid with a high penetration of dispersed photovoltaic (PV) solar generation sites, which maintains the traditional power quality and reliability associated with grid service. This project developed and deployed the platform as a Distributed Energy Resource Management System (DERMS), engaging multiple advanced controls, to evaluate operation and optimization of a fleet of diverse DER assets, installed at several locations among Austin Energy’s customers and distribution system. The project also produced a methodology to create a replicable DERMS template, adaptable to other regions and market structures. Last, Austin SHINES aimed to demonstrate the solution’s methodology would enable the DER grid ecosystem to serve load at a technical cost (System Levelized Cost of Electricity, or System LCOE) of less than the U.S. Department of Energy SHINES program metric of $0.14/kWh, in a defined boundary, while enabling a high penetration of distributed PV. Research was categorized in 6 reports (Final Deliverables = FD) listed below, with titles and descriptions indicating which area of understanding was investigated: FD-1: System Levelized Cost of Electricity (System LCOE) Methodology The creation and use of the System LCOE to Serve Load metric that encompasses the holistic, system-level costs and benefits of all resources, and enables them to be evaluated based on their ability to support an efficient and low-cost integrated grid ecosystem. FD-2: Software Platform Product Description The creation of new DER control methodologies deployable within a utility-grade software platform that enable DER's to maximize their benefit within a grid, that is capable of serving load enabling a high penetration of distributed PV generation. FD-3: Optimal Design Methodology Optimal design methodologies for individual DER installations that enable utilities to determine the optimal combinations and sizing for individual DER sites. FD-4: Austin SHINES Ownership and Operation Models for DER System Performance A comparison of multiple DER aggregation and ownership methodologies including direct utility control, third-party aggregator, and autonomous. FD-5: Economic Modeling & Optimization A comparison of multiple DER technology mixes and configurations within the distribution system, providing insight into an optimal blend of technologies that best enable the distribution system to serve load at the lowest cost at high penetrations of solar. FD-6: Fielded Assets Deployed DER assets within the Austin Energy SHINES circuits. Austin SHINES provided an opening for state-of-the-art technology products to be deployed, providing a rich opportunity for improving how each of the products perform as stand-alone products, and in concert with other complementary products. The Austin SHINES project comprised of two key metrics for System LCOE: SystemLCOE_SHINES<$0.14/kWh Modeled ΔSystemLCOE_SHINES/ΔSystemLCOE_Base≥20% at same solar penetration The System LCOE calculation uses the costs of the utility-owned infrastructure as it exists today, the cost of the DERs that exist in the system today, and the cost of the purchase of energy from ERCOT wholesale markets over the course of the calendar year. All costs are on an annualized basis. The capital and operating costs are derived from the rate case, which produces a yearly cost. The net cost of energy and services imported to the system is integrated over the test year, as is the load served and solar penetration. The first metric was easily achieved by every scenario considered. The goal was set when the Department of Energy’s SHINES Funding Opportunity Announcement was written in 2015 and was a more difficult target at the time. Due mostly to rapidly declining costs for DERs and the significant decrease in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) energy market prices, which results in lower net cost of energy purchases, the System LCOE is well below this target for all scenarios considered. A fleet of DERs can assume different mixtures, each of which serves the load at a different LCOE. The optimal mixture of DERs serves load at the smallest System LCOE. The second metric (hereinafter %delta metric) asks that the holistic DERMS controls reduce the incremental cost above the baseline of going to a high solar penetration future by at least 20% as compared to the case of a DER deployment with no sophisticated controls (autonomous). Many comparison sets were created throughout this project. Physical technology was installed for informing utility engineering and testing several types of operational control schemes, through the DERMS. The types of operational control which were compared for valuation of the System LCOE Metric were: Holistic control = using the full suite of the DERMS platform to decide and optimize how/why the systems operate depending on weather, market, and reliability signal input. Autonomous control = a local mode at the asset site, wherein a schedule operates the asset, with visibility into performance only No control = the baseline for comparing value against the other two types of control The types of ownership control included: Direct Utility control = the utility dispatches a signal to each asset Third-Party Aggregator = a third party aggregates a fleet of assets and the utility dispatches one signal for all Autonomous = a local mode is set for operation at the asset site, wherein a schedule operates the asset, with visibility into performance only The types of control methodologies deployable within a utility-grade software platform included: Utility Peak Load Reduction = Lower transmission cost obligation Day-Ahead Energy Arbitrage = Realize economic value through price differential Real-Time Price Dispatch = Realize economic value from real-time price spikes Voltage support = Reduce losses and increase solar generation Distribution Congestion Management = Increase local grid reliability Demand Charge Reduction = Lower customer bills and realize system benefit The fielded assets deployed for the project were: Utility Scale Kingsbery Energy Storage System: 1.5 MW / 3 MWh Li-Ion battery storage Mueller Energy Storage System: 1.75 MW / 3.2 MWh Li-Ion battery storage, 7 Energy Storage Units (250 kW each) La Loma Community Solar: 2.6 MW Commercial Scale Aggregated storage installations at 3 sites, with existing solar (300+ kW): One 18 kW / 36 kWh Li-Ion battery storage Two 72 kW / 144 kWh Li-Ion battery storage Residential Scale Aggregated storage installations: -Six stationary battery storage systems (10 kWh each) at homes with existing solar -One Electric Vehicle installed as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Utility-Controlled Solar via Smart Inverters at 12 homes Autonomously-Controlled Smart Inverters at 6 homes Over the course of the project, Austin SHINES undertook installing more than 3 MW of distributed battery energy storage, smart PV inverters, a DER control platform, and other enabling technologies utilizing customer and utility locations and aggregation models. All of these resources were to be integrated and optimized at the utility level. DER assets and control methodologies were designed to achieve a credible pathway to a System LCOE for energy delivered to load of $0.14//kWh or less by 2020, while maximizing distributed solar generation and maintaining acceptable standards of power quality. The project also established a template for other regions to follow, to maximize the adoption of distributed solar PV in support of an economic and efficient grid. In total, the Austin SHINES project added value to the DER subject area in each layer of integration. From utility, to commercial to residential scales, the sheer hierarchy of communication and coordination was a significant accomplishment in addition to learnings from what these communications revealed was unique to each. Economically, the most effective method demonstrated was the criticality of planning phases. Contingencies and multiple projection scenarios helped guide the project to deploy optimal design as close as feasible, in real world conditions. The project and reports will serve public benefit by outlining specific areas of DER strategy and installation where many stakeholders and needs can be addressed with improved efficiency. Overall, communities and utilities should use the results to guide the increasing options available for powering the grid with DER, renewables, and carbon considerate energy.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

West Valley Demonstration Project Annual Site Environmental Report (CY2019)

The report, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy West Valley Demonstration Project office (DOE-WVDP), summarizes the environmental protection program at the WVDP for calendar year (CY) 2019. Monitoring and surveillance of the facilities used by the DOE are conducted to verify protection of public health and safety and the environment. The report is a key component of DOE’s effort to keep the public informed of environmental conditions at the WVDP. The quality assurance protocols applied to the environmental monitoring program ensure the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data. In addition to demonstrating compliance with environmental laws, regulations, and directives, evaluation of data collected in 2019 continued to indicate that WVDP activities pose no threat to public health or safety, or to the environment.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Argonne National Laboratory Site Environmental Report (CY2019)

This report discusses the status and the accomplishments of the environmental protection program at Argonne National Laboratory for calendar year 2019. The status of Argonne environmental protection activities with respect to compliance with the various laws and regulations is discussed, along with environmental management, sustainability efforts, environmental corrective actions, and habitat restoration. To evaluate the effects of Argonne operations on the environment, samples of environmental media collected on the site, at the site boundary, and off the Argonne site were analyzed and compared with applicable guidelines and standards. A variety of radionuclides were measured in air, surface water, groundwater, and bottom sediment samples. In addition, chemical constituents in surface water, groundwater, and wastewater were analyzed. External penetrating radiation doses were measured, and the potential for radiation exposure to off-site population groups was estimated. Results are interpreted with respect to the origin of the radioactive and chemical substances (i.e., natural, Argonne, and other) and are compared with applicable standards intended to protect human health and the environment. A U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) dose calculation methodology, based on International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CAP-88 Version 4 computer code, was used in preparing this report.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2019

This report presents the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office environmental protection and monitoring programs data and the compliance status for calendar year 2019 at the Nevada National Security Site and at its two support facilities, the North Las Vegas Facility and the Remote Sensing Laboratory-Nellis. This report also addresses environmental restoration projects conducted by the Environmental Management Nevada Program Office at the Tonopah Test Range.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Annual Site Environmental Report (CY2019)

The primary purpose of this report is to summarize the performance of Ames Laboratory’s environmental programs, present highlights of significant environmental activities, and confirm compliance with environmental regulations and requirements for calendar year 2019. This report is a working requirement of Department of Energy Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting. It includes descriptions of the Laboratory’s site, mission, the status of its compliance with applicable environmental regulations, its planning and activities to maintain compliance, and a comprehensive review of its environmental protection, surveillance and monitoring activities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program 2019 Report

The Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program (EMAC), funded through the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO), monitors the ecosystem of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and ensures compliance with laws and regulations pertaining to NNSS biota. This report summarizes the program’s activities conducted by Mission Support and Test Services, LLC (MSTS), during calendar year 2019. Program activities included (a) biological surveys at proposed activity sites, (b) desert tortoise compliance, (c) ecosystem monitoring, (d) sensitive and protected/regulated plant monitoring, (e) sensitive and protected/regulated animal monitoring, and (f) habitat restoration monitoring. During 2019, all applicable laws, regulations, and permit requirements were met, enabling EMAC to achieve its intended goals and objectives.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Winter 2016 Progress Update: Better Buildings Alliance

From 2013-2016, the Better Buildings Alliance published an update each winter on the previous year's activities, including partner projects, sector priorities, technology teams, and market solutions efforts. This report covers activities from calendar year 2015. It is also the final report, as going forward the Better Buildings Alliance activities were included in the annual Better Buildings Progress Report.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Winter 2015 Progress Update: Better Buildings Alliance

From 2013-2016, the Better Buildings Alliance published an update each winter on the previous year's activities, including partner projects, sector priorities, technology teams, and market solutions efforts. This report covers activities for the calendar year of 2014.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Better Buildings Alliance: 2013 Annual Report

From 2013-2016, the Better Buildings Alliance published an update each winter on the previous year's activities, including partner projects, sector priorities, technology teams, and market solutions efforts. This report covers activities for the calendar year of 2013.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

2019 Site Environmental Report (Volume 1)

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is managed on behalf of the Department of Energy (DOE) by Brookhaven Science Associates (BSA), a partnership between the Research Foundation for the State University of New York on behalf of Stony Brook University and Battelle. For over 70 years, the Laboratory has played a lead role in the DOE Science and Technology mission and continues to contribute to the DOE’s missions in energy resources, environmental quality, and national security. BNL manages its world-class scientific research with particular sensitivity to environmental issues and community concerns. The Laboratory’s Environmental, Safety, Security, and Health (ESSH) Policy reflects the commitment of BNL’s management to fully integrate environmental stewardship into all facets of its mission and operations. BNL prepares an annual Site Environmental Report (SER) in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting. The report is written to inform the public, regulators, employees, and other stakeholders of the Laboratory’s environmental performance during the calendar year in review. Volume I of the SER summarizes environmental data; environmental management performance; compliance with applicable DOE, federal, state, and local regulations; and performance in restoration and surveillance monitoring programs. BNL has prepared annual SERs since 1971 and has documented nearly all its environmental history since the Laboratory’s inception in 1947. Volume II of the SER, the Groundwater Status Report, is also prepared annually to report on the status of groundwater protection and restoration efforts. Volume II includes detailed technical summaries of groundwater data and treatment system operations and is intended for regulators and other technically oriented stakeholders. A summary of the information contained in Volume II is included in Chapter 7, Groundwater Protection, of this volume.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Sandia National Laboratories Annual Site Environmental Report, 2019: New Mexico

Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the United States Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s Sandia Field Office administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico. Activities at the site support research and development programs with a wide variety of national security missions, resulting in technologies for nonproliferation, homeland security, energy and infrastructure, and defense systems and assessments. DOE and its management and operating contractor are committed to safeguarding the environment, assessing sustainability practices, and ensuring the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data presented in this Annual Site Environmental Report. This report summarizes the environmental protection and monitoring programs in place at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, during calendar year 2019. Environmental topics include air quality, ecology, environmental restoration, oil storage, site sustainability, terrestrial surveillance, waste management, water quality, and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. This report is prepared in accordance with and as required by DOE O 231.1B, Admin Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, and has been approved for public distribution.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Sandia National Laboratories Annual Site Environmental Report, 2019: Tonopah Test Range, Nevada and Kaua'i Test Facility, Hawai'i

Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the United States Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s Sandia Field Office administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at Sandia National Laboratories, Tonopah Test Range (SNL/TTR) in Nevada and Sandia National Laboratories, Kaua‘i Test Facility (SNL/KTF) in Hawai‘i. Activities at SNL/TTR are conducted in support of DOE weapons programs and have operated at the site since 1957. SNL/KTF has operated as a rocket preparation launching and tracking facility since 1962. DOE and its management and operating contractor are committed to safeguarding the environment, assessing sustainability practices, and ensuring the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data presented in this Annual Site Environmental Report. This report summarizes the environmental protection, restoration, and monitoring programs in place at SNL/TTR and SNL/KTF during calendar year 2019. Environmental topics include air quality, ecology, environmental restoration, oil storage, site sustainability, terrestrial surveillance, waste management, water quality, and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. This report is prepared in accordance with and as required by DOE O 231.1B, Admin Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, and has been approved for public distribution.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Preliminary Evaluation of Driver Fuel Plates and Reduced Sodium Temperature to Increase Fast Test Reactor Experimental Neutron Irradiation Capabilities

All sodium-cooled fast test reactors operated so far have used essentially the same fuel geometrical ar-rangement, namely cylindrical fuel pins assembled into a triangular array in hexagonal fuel assemblies. Fuel compositions and dimensions may vary but the overall geometrical pattern remains identical. Fur-thermore, most sodium-cooled reactors have operated, and still operate, with core-average inlet and outlet sodium temperatures of, respectively, 350-400°C and 500-550°C. The present preliminary study revisits the standard fuel assembly geometry as well as operating tempera-tures to evaluate potential impact on fast test reactor neutron irradiation capabilities. The reference fuel is U-20Pu-10Zr. Pin (reference) and plate geometries are considered together with two sets of core-average sodium inlet/outlet temperatures: 350/500°C (reference) and 200/400°C. More prototypic environments could be obtained inside ad-hoc irradiation testing vehicles that are independent from the reactor primary coolant. Everything else being the same, fuel temperature is significantly lower in plates than in pins. Therefore, plates could in principle accommodate higher plutonium content, thus, reducing the need for uranium enrichment or allowing the use of lower quality plutonium (U-xPu-10Zr thermal conductivity and solidus temperature decrease as x increases, hence, necessitating additional thermal margins). For the reference pin configuration, lowering the inlet/outlet sodium temperatures from the reference 350/500°C down to 200/400°C provides additional thermal margins that can be used to increase the peak fast flux from about 4.5 × 10 15 n/cm 2 -s to 6 ×10 15 n/cm 2 -s for the same core power of 300 MW. Assuming 300 Equivalent Fuel Power Days (EFPD) of operation per calendar year, a (steel) test article could accu-mulate up to 75 dpa/year. The use of fuel plates provides even more thermal margins which may allow the peak fast flux to reach values as high as 8 × 10 15 n/cm 2 -s for both sets of inlet/outlet temperatures. In this environment, a test article could accumulate up to 95 dpa/year assuming 300 EFPD/year, hence greatly accelerating irradiation testing. Allowing a fast test reactor to operate over a wide range of inlet/outlet temperatures could add significant flexibility to its neutron irradiation capabilities. Steel present in the driver fuel assemblies is not expected to accumulate more than 90 displacements per atom (dpa) over its lifetime. Hence, steel alloys that are not suited for very high dpa but can operate over a wide range of temperatures (from low to high) would be appropriate for this application. Finally, because pin and plate assemblies fit on the same grid plate, a fast test reactor could in principle start-up with standard fuel pin assemblies and, later on, move to a plate-type Mark-II fuel to further in-crease its neutron irradiation capabilities while potentially reducing the level of uranium enrichment needed.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Site Environmental Report for 2017 Sandia National Laboratories California

Sandia National Laboratories, California (SNL/CA) is a Department of Energy (DOE) facility. The management and operations of the facility are under a contract with the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). On May 1, 2017, the name of the management and operating contractor changed from Sandia Corporation to National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS). The DOE, NNSA, Sandia Field Office administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at the site. This Site Environmental Report for 2017 was prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting (DOE 2012). The report provides a summary of environmental monitoring information and compliance activities that occurred at SNL/CA during calendar year 2017, unless noted otherwise. General site and environmental program information is also included.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Site Environmental Report for 2019

This report, prepared by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) for the U.S. Department of Energy, Bay Area Site Office (DOE!BASO), provides a comprehensive summary of the environmental program activities at LBNL for calendar year 2019. SERs are prepared annually for all DOE sites with significant environmental activities, and distributed to relevant external regulatory agencies and other interested organizations or individuals.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2019 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions Report

In June 2020, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) submitted letter ESHQSS: 20-025 to Region 6 of the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This letter transmitted the 2019 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions Report to the EPA. This report summarizes LANL operations, air emissions of radionuclides, and subsequent off-site dose consequence from these emissions for calendar year 2019. This report is issued to meet requirements of 40 CFR 61 Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities. This regulation, called the Radionuclide NESHAP, establishes a limit of 10 millirem per year to the maximally exposed member of the public and requires an annual report to be submitted to the appropriate EPA Region by June 30th of each year. LANL’s off-site dose from airborne emissions of radionuclides in 2019 was 0.43 millirem. The normal practice is to issue this report directly to EPA Region 6 in June of each year, and then after the report is accepted by the EPA, re-issue the report for inclusion in the LANL Electronic Public Reading Room (EPRR). This second part is usually done in July of each year, but this step was overlooked in July 2020 due to other commitments. We regret this error. This omission was noted in late 2020; we are submitting the 2019 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions Report to the EPRR now in December 2020. Aside from the addition of this cover sheet explaining the delay, the report is unchanged from the version submitted to EPA Region 6 in June.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗