Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Permitting process”

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.

870 records · Page 49

DYNAMICS OF CIRCUMSTELLAR DISKS. III. THE CASE OF GG Tau A

We present two-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations using the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic code, VINE, to model a self-gravitating binary system. We model configurations in which a circumbinary torus+disk surrounds a pair of stars in orbit around each other and a circumstellar disk surrounds each star, similar to that observed for the GG Tau A system. We assume that the disks cool as blackbodies, using rates determined independently at each location in the disk by the time dependent temperature of the photosphere there. We assume heating due to hydrodynamical processes and to radiation from the two stars, using rates approximated from a measure of the radiation intercepted by the disk at its photosphere. We simulate a suite of systems configured with semimajor axes of either a = 62 AU (“wide”) or a = 32 AU (“close”), and with assumed orbital eccentricity of either e = 0 or e = 0.3. Each simulation follows the evolution for ∼6500–7500 yr, corresponding to about three orbits of the torus around the center of mass. Our simulations show that strong, sharply defined spiral structures are generated from the stirring action of the binary and that, in some cases, these structures fragment into 1–2 massive clumps. The torus quickly fragments into several dozen such fragments in configurations in which either the binary is replaced by a single star of equal mass, or radiative heating is neglected. The spiral structures extend inwards to the circumstellar environment as large scale material streams for which most material is found on trajectories that return it to the torus on a timescale of 1–200 yr, with only a small fraction accreting into the circumstellar environment. The spiral structures also propagate outwards through the torus, generating net outwards mass flow, and eventually losing coherence at large distances from the stars. The torus becomes significantly eccentric in shape over most of its evolution. In all configurations, accretion onto the stars occurs at a steady rate of a few ×10{sup −8} M {sub ⊙} yr{sup −1}, with the net result that, without replenishment, the disk lifetimes would be shorter than ∼10{sup 4} yr. Our simulations show that only wide orbit configurations are able to retain circumstellar disks, by virtue of accretion driven from the robust material streams generated in wide configurations, which are very weak in close configurations. In wide, eccentric orbit configurations, accretion is episodic and occurs preferentially onto the secondary, with rates strongly peaked near the binary periapse. Based on our results, we conclude that the GG Tau A torus is strongly self gravitating and that a major contribution to its thermal energy input is the shock dissipation associated with spiral structures generated both by self gravitating disturbances and by the stirring action of the binary. We interpret the sharply defined features observed in the torus as manifestations of such spiral structures. We interpret the low density disk surrounding it as an excretion disk created by the outward mass flux generated by the spiral arms as they propagate outwards. Typical eccentricities calculated for the shape of the tori modeled in our simulations are large enough to account for the supposed ∼20° mutual inclination between the stellar orbit plane of GG Tau A and its surrounding torus through a degeneracy between the interpretation of inclination of the torus and its eccentricity. We therefore interpret the observations in favor of a coplanar system with an eccentric torus. Because accretion onto the disks occurs at rates sufficient to sustain them only in wide orbit configurations, we conclude that the gas currently resident in the circumstellar disks of the GG Tau A system has been accreted from the torus within the past few thousand years. Although circumstellar disks will persist over time spans long enough to permit planet formation, the overall environment remains unfavorable due to high temperatures and other conditions. Given the presence of circumstellar disks, robust accretion streams, and our interpretation of the GG Tau A stellar orbit plane as coplanar with the torus surrounding it, we conclude that the GG Tau A system is in an eccentric, a ∼ 62 AU orbit, resolving questions in the literature regarding its orbit parameters.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

Kansas City, Missouri, Streetlight Electric Vehicle Charging: Strategies and challenges for site selection of streetlight electric vehicle infrastructure in Kansas City, Missouri (Final Report)

Public streetlight charging, whether on streets in central business districts or residential areas, provides easy charging access for apartment residents and homeowners alike. While most electric vehicle (EV) drivers charge at home, they do so in garages or on driveways they own. For renters and residents of multifamily housing (MFH), however, this may not be an option. EVs have a lower cost of ownership compared to conventional vehicles, and a used EV may be an affordable option for a lower-income household. But without easy access to charging, even a low-cost used EV may not be an option for a prospective buyer. An affordable curbside charging network has the potential to expand EV adoption into neighborhoods that have to date seen minimal interest and uptake of the technology and associated charging infrastructure. Streetlight charging networks can provide an economical, scalable, and effective approach to providing equitable and convenient charging. Metropolitan Energy Center (MEC) is dedicated to the mission of creating resource efficiency, environmental health, and economic vitality in the Kansas City region and beyond. Since 1983, MEC has provided resources, outreach, and training to make alternative fuels and energy efficiency commonplace. MEC led a streetlight charging pilot project that installed limited EV charging infrastructure on the streetlight system in Kansas City, Missouri, to demonstrate and test the benefits of curbside charging for EVs at existing on-street parking locations. The project aimed to cost-effectively expand the charging network in Kansas City to support residential charging and provide infrastructure in one or more charging deserts throughout the city. This pilot evaluates the impact and overall success of streetlight charging based on community feedback, utilization of charging infrastructure, technical feasibility, and cost. The project has pursued a data- and community-driven site selection process designed to identify sites with high demand and high opportunity for EV charging. This project was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and awarded to MEC through a competitive proposal process. The novelty and complexity of this project required an organization that could facilitate collaboration across levels of government, community members, and industry partners. For the past 25 years, through Kansas City Regional Clean Cities, MEC has worked with numerous public and private fleets on a variety of projects to improve the environmental performance and efficiency of the regional vehicle fleet. To advance affordable, efficient, and clean transportation efforts, DOE Clean Cities and Communities coalitions create local networks of public and private sector stakeholders and engage communities. Rooted within their local communities, the coalitions serve as experts and ambassadors, bringing to bear the collective knowledge, experience, and practical know-how of the entire network from within DOE, its national laboratories, and diverse stakeholders in the field. MEC and its project partners made in-kind contributions to leverage federal dollars for the benefit of the Kansas City community. Findings from this project will help determine the best applications for streetlight charging technologies to maximize funding impact and serve community needs. The team evaluated locations based on expected charging demand, technical feasibility, safety considerations, and enhanced charging network siting needs. Throughout the project, the team gathered feedback and evaluated ways to make public charging for EVs available to all community members. The insights will help Kansas City and other communities streamline future efforts to support EV drivers through public charging in the city right-of-way. Furthermore, this project will inform citywide guidance for future installations. MEC is committed to a transparent and publicly accessible approach that encourages the collaborative evaluation of streetlight charging. The project has engaged the community to proactively identify and evaluate the benefits and impacts of streetlight charging. It was a priority for the project to ensure the benefits of this pilot are distributed equitably to all members of the Kansas City community and that new charging opportunities and associated resources are available in diverse neighborhoods across the city. The charging infrastructure supports an affordable curbside charging network that will enable more drivers to choose EVs and provide easy charging access for all community members interested in driving an EV. The community feedback received through this project informed future resources and opportunities to make EVs more accessible to all members of the Kansas City community. MEC worked with several community partners on this project, including Missouri University of Science and Technology (MST), Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); the city of Kansas City, Missouri; Evergy; Black and McDonald (B&M); LilyPad EV; EVNoire; and Westside Housing Organization (WHO). Project partners contributed to the cost match required for DOE grants through capital expenditures, personnel, and other in-kind contributions. Detailed descriptions of project team organizations can be found in Appendix A. Project Partners. Analysts at NREL and MST/PennState developed site maps based on demand and equity considerations. MEC conducted outreach to community members to garner input on project design and site selection, and received approval from the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) for Evergy’s EV charging station ownership. MEC worked with all partners to gather additional siting criteria and developed a site selection evaluation checklist, and partners conducted site visits to proposed installation sites. Next, B&M, Evergy, and the city executed all site agreements, conducted site-specific engineering design, acquired associated permits, and issued notices to proceed site by site or in small batches. Finally, from January to April 2023, the project team installed 23 EV charging stations built on Kansas City’s streetlight system in six council districts. Evergy will own, operate, and monitor the stations for 10 years, sharing charging data with MEC for at least 1 year.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

A combined static-dynamic single-dose imaging protocol to compare quantitative dynamic SPECT with static conventional SPECT

Background: SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is a clinical mainstay that is typically performed with static imaging protocols and visually or semi-quantitatively assessed for perfusion defects based upon the relative intensity of myocardial regions. Dynamic cardiac SPECT presents a new imaging technique based on time-varying information of radiotracer distribution, which permits the evaluation of regional myocardial blood flow (MBF) and coronary flow reserve (CFR). In this work, a preliminary feasibility study was conducted in a small patient sample designed to implement a unique combined static-dynamic single-dose one-day visit imaging protocol to compare quantitative dynamic SPECT with static conventional SPECT for improving the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: Fifteen patients (11 males, four females, mean age 71 ± 9 years) were enrolled for a combined dynamic and static SPECT (Infinia Hawkeye 4, GE Healthcare) imaging protocol with a single dose of {sup 99m}Tc-tetrofosmin administered at rest and a single dose administered at stress in a one-day visit. Out of 15 patients, eleven had selective coronary angiography (SCA), 8 within 6 months and the rest within 24 months of SPECT imaging, without intervening symptoms or interventions. The extent and severity of perfusion defects in each myocardial region was graded visually. Dynamically acquired data were also used to estimate the MBF and CFR. Both visually graded images and estimated CFR were tested against SCA as a reference to evaluate the validity of the methods. Results: Overall, conventional static SPECT was normal in ten patients and abnormal in five patients, dynamic SPECT was normal in 12 patients and abnormal in three patients, and CFR from dynamic SPECT was normal in nine patients and abnormal in six patients. Among those 11 patients with SCA, conventional SPECT was normal in 5, 3 with documented CAD on SCA with an overall accuracy of 64%, sensitivity of 40% and specificity of 83%. Dynamic SPECT image analysis also produced a similar accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. CFR was normal in 6, each with CAD on SCA with an overall accuracy of 91%, sensitivity of 80%, and specificity of 100%. The mean CFR was significantly lower for SCA detected abnormal than for normal patients (3.86±1.06 vs 1.94±0. 0.67, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The visually assessed image findings in static and dynamic SPECT are subjective, and may not reflect direct physiologic measures of coronary lesion based on SCA. The CFR measured with dynamic SPECT is fully objective, with better sensitivity and specificity, available only with the data generated from the dynamic SPECT method.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

Accelerating the Deployment of Advanced Energy Communities: The Oakland EcoBlock A Zero Net Energy, Low Water Use Retrofit Neighborhood Demonstration Project

This report describes the design development process and recommendations of a Community-Scale Zero Net Energy Master Plan for a residential block in Oakland, the Oakland EcoBlock. The recommended master plan includes an integrated system of energy efficiency retrofits, a direct current solar/storage/electric vehicle microgrid, alternating/direct current houses, and water efficiency retrofits with rainwater capture. The recommended master plan is projected to be close to zero-net energy (95 percent) for homes, reduce carbon emissions by 65 percent at the block scale (including transportation), and reduce water use 60–70 percent. The integrated system of energy efficiency and a direct current solar/storage/electric vehicle (EV) charging microgrid is the first of its kind at the residential block scale. This breakthrough because the deep energy efficiency retrofit savings free up enough capacity in the solar supply and storage to enable residents to switch from natural gas to electricity for heating and domestic hot water and to provide EV charging for 33 percent of vehicle miles traveled. The savings in household transportation costs are a game changer because when combined with savings in the electric and water utility bills, the total cash flow savings are projected to fund the capital improvements of the proposed systems. This project’s benefits include lower and more predictable utility bills; greater resiliency because the system can operate during outages, and vastly improved indoor air quality by reducing natural gas consumption. The local energy storage reduces peak demand for the utility. California benefits from a model that exceeds the targets for reductions in energy consumption and carbon emissions and the reductions in water use address California’s severe water challenges. The Oakland EcoBlock is a transformative model for accelerating the rapid deployment of advanced energy communities.

decarbonization codes↗

Performance Assessment Results for the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility - 19134

In 2014, the US DOE Office of River Protection and its contractors began to develop a performance assessment for the near-surface disposal of low-level and mixed low-level waste at the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility. The Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility is a doubly-lined landfill that was constructed between 2004 and 2006 to be the disposal facility for the vitrified low-activity waste containers that will be produced at the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. The disposal facility is also expected to receive solid secondary waste produced at the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant and other solid wastes from site activities. The constructed facility is awaiting authorization to receive waste. Although no waste destined for the facility is currently being generated, operations cannot begin until the facility has received a Disposal Authorization Statement from US DOE and a permit modification from the State of Washington Department of Ecology. Both the Disposal Authorization Statement and permit modification require a demonstration that the system of engineered and natural features of the disposal facility will limit releases from the facility and be protective of human health and the environment for the next 1,000 to 10,000 years. Based on the analyses presented in the Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment, US DOE issued a conditional Disposal Authorization Statement for the facility in June 2018. Demonstrating the long-term performance of the facility to be protective of human health and the environment was evaluated under the requirements of US DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. Computer simulations were performed to evaluate whether or not the disposal facility would comply with the performance objectives specified in the order. The evaluation was performed using numerical models to simulate source term releases from vitrified and cement-based waste forms. Source term releases were subsequently transported through an air pathway and a groundwater pathway to a point of compliance 100 meters from the disposed of waste. In addition, an analysis evaluating the consequences of an inadvertent intrusion into the waste was also performed. In accordance with US DoE's technical standard for performance assessments, deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to demonstrate that the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility, together with the engineered features of the waste forms and natural features of the selected site, provides a reasonable expectation that the low-level waste and mixed low-level waste disposal will meet the radiological performance objectives established by US DOE. Post-closure doses to future members of the public were evaluated after the time of closure and included a 100-year period of institutional controls that limited exposure immediately following closure of the facility. Calculated doses to a future member of the public from the air pathway were below the 100 μSv/yr dose performance objective. Calculated doses to a future member of the public from all exposure pathways, including the air pathway and the groundwater pathway, were below the 250 μSv/yr dose performance objective. Doses following an inadvertent intrusion into the facility after the institutional control period were below the 5 mSv acute dose performance measure and the 1 mSv/yr chronic dose performance measure. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗