Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “code”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

BEPAM-E Model Code and CABBI Simulation Results for "Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications"

The dataset consists of results and various input data that are used in the GAMS model for the publication "Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications". All the data are either excel files or in the .inc format which can be read within GAMS or Notepad. Main data sources include: agriculture, transportation and electricity data. Model details can be found in the paper and the GAMS model package.

carbon abatement↗
DOE OSTI2019

User Instructions for the CiderF Individual Dose Code and Associated Utility Codes

This is a major update to PNNL-22699 published back in 2013. Historical activities at facilities producing nuclear materials for weapons released radioactivity into the air and water. Past studies in the United States have evaluated the release, atmospheric transport and environmental accumulation of 131I from the nuclear facilities at Hanford in Washington State and the resulting dose to members of the public (Farris et al. 1994). A multi-year dose reconstruction effort (Degteva et al. 2019; Eslinger et al. 2014; Mokrov et al. 2004; Napier 2014; Napier et al. 2017; Tolstykh et al. 2018) is also being conducted to produce representative dose estimates for members of the public living near Mayak, Russia, from atmospheric releases of 131I at the facilities of the Mayak Production Association.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Impacts of Model Building Energy Codes

The Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) periodically evaluates national and state-level impacts associated with energy codes in residential and commercial buildings. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), funded by DOE, conducted an assessment of the prospective impacts of national model building energy codes from 2010 through 2040. A previous PNNL study evaluated the impact of the Building Energy Codes Program. A 2016 study looked more broadly at overall code impacts and this report describes the methodology used for the assessment and presents the impacts in terms of energy savings, consumer cost savings, and reduced emissions at the state level and at aggregated levels. In 2021, DOE conducted an interim and limited update to its 2016 study to evaluate potential building code updates using the 2016 methodology. That interim update includes estimated savings resulting from updates to the model energy codes, including the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 (ASHRAE 90.1-2016) and 2019 editions, as well as the 2018 and 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). In 2023, DOE developed a fully updated report that includes code updates (ASHRAE 90.1-2019 and 2021 IECC), as well as additional enhancements and updates, including updated energy prices, annual floorspace additions, state code adoption dates, and emission factors, among others. This current version is another fully updated report that includes code updates (ASHRAE 90.1-2022 and 2024 IECC), as well as additional enhancements and updates, including updated energy prices, state code adoption dates, emission factors, and renewable energy contribution among others. Energy codes follow a three-phase cycle that starts with the development of a new model code, proceeds with the adoption of the new code by states and local jurisdictions, and finishes when the new code is implemented and builders, architects, and engineers are required to comply with the new provisions. The development of new model code editions creates the potential for increased energy savings. After a new model code is adopted, potential savings are realized in the field when new buildings (or additions and alterations) are constructed to comply with the new code. The contributions of all three phases are crucial to the overall impact of codes and are considered in this assessment. Figure ES.1 schematically describes the analysis framework. Energy savings are expressed in terms of energy use intensity (EUI) in the figure.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Energy Codes Gap Analysis Field Study in the Southwest (Final Technical Report)

The primary goal of the “An Energy Codes Gap Analysis Field Study in the Southwest” project was to improve housing through strengthened building energy code implementation in two states, Colorado and Nevada, leading to greater energy and utility bill savings for households. Colorado is a home rule state. Nevada adopts a statewide code, but cities and counties must also adopt the code, making the state function like a home rule state. To broaden the impact of the project, an additional goal was to share and amplify project experiences, findings, and lessons that can be applied in other states. To achieve these goals, the project’s key objectives were to examine how residential energy codes are implemented in partner states; to use these findings to strengthen codes implementation through enhanced education, training, and outreach; and to enhance energy code technical assistance capabilities in the two partner states. In both partner states, the project led to the creation of a quantitative baseline understanding of compliance with high-impact energy code requirements, such as foundation, wall, and ceiling R-value; window U-factor and SHGC; envelope air tightness; duct tightness; and high-efficiency lighting. It then applied this baseline information to directly inform training in geographic areas with high levels of building and construction activity. The project has placed Colorado and Nevada among 23 states across the country that have conducted a single-family residential field study based on the established U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) methodology since 2014. It has also helped each State Energy Office test models for partnership- and relationship-building among government agencies and key stakeholder groups, including the State Energy Office and relevant code administration and professional licensing agencies, building officials, designers, builders, trades and utilities. At the national level, the project helped educate and inform State and Territory Energy Offices on a replicable methodology to assess energy code construction practices, effective stakeholder engagement strategies, and tailored energy code education and training. These findings are particularly pertinent for home-rule states, such as Colorado and Nevada, which rely on local government awareness and action to advance and implement building energy codes. By raising awareness of code adoption and compliance, this project has helped to equip each partner state with data on code compliance, strategies, education, and partnership models to advance building energy codes. This in turn will have an important impact on new construction practices in Colorado and Nevada, leading to more energy efficient and affordable housing. Currently, more than 62 percent of Colorado’s population lives in one of the 55 jurisdictions that have adopted the 2021 IECC to date, while nearly 95 percent of the state's population lives in one of the 208 jurisdictions that have adopted a code at 2015 IECC levels or higher. In Nevada, the 2018 IECC was adopted by the Governor’s Office of Energy in July 2018. By July 2020, 47 percent of the adopted energy code in the state was 2018 IECC which covers 96.5 percent of Nevada’s population. The training materials funded by this project focus on the 2021 IECC and will continue to be relevant in the two states as additional jurisdictions update their building energy codes.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Engineering 3D Floquet Codes by Rewinding

Floquet codes are a novel class of quantum error-correcting codes with dynamically generated logical qubits arising from a periodic schedule of noncommuting measurements. We utilize the interpretation of measurements in terms of condensation of topological excitations and the rewinding of measurement sequences to engineer new examples of Floquet codes. In particular, rewinding is advantageous for obtaining a desired set of instantaneous stabilizer groups on both toric and planar layouts. Our first example is a Floquet code with instantaneous stabilizer codes that have the same topological order as the three-dimensional (3D) toric code(s). This Floquet code also exhibits a splitting of the topological order of the 3D toric code under the associated sequence of measurements, i.e., an instantaneous stabilizer group of a single copy of the 3D toric code in one round transforms into an instantaneous stabilizer group of two copies of the 3D toric code up to nonlocal stabilizers in the following round. We further construct boundaries for this 3D code and argue that stacking it with two copies of the 3D subsystem toric code allows for a transversal implementation of the logical non-Clifford controlled-controlled- Z gate. We also show that the coupled-layer construction of the X-cube Floquet code can be modified by a rewinding schedule such that each of the instantaneous stabilizer codes is finite depth equivalent to the X-cube model up to toric codes; the X-cube Floquet code exhibits a splitting of the X-cube model into a copy of the X-cube model and toric codes under the measurement sequence. Our final 3D example is a generalization of the 2D Floquet toric code on the honeycomb lattice to three dimensions, which has instantaneous stabilizer codes with the same topological order as the 3D fermionic toric code. Published by the American Physical Society2024

Physics↗
DOE OSTI2018

Energy Savings Analysis of the Proposed NYStretch-Energy Code 2018

This study was conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in support of the stretch energy code development led by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). In 2017 NYSERDA developed its 2016 Stretch Code Supplement to the 2016 New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code (hereinafter referred to as “NYStretch-Energy”). NYStretch-Energy is intended as a model energy code for statewide voluntary adoption that anticipates other code advancements culminating in the goal of a statewide Net Zero Energy Code by 2028. Since then, NYSERDA continues to develop the NYStretch-Energy Code 2018 edition. To support the effort, PNNL conducted energy simulation analysis to quantify the energy savings of proposed commercial provisions of the NYStretch-Energy Code (2018) in New York. The focus of this project is the 20% improvement over existing commercial model energy codes. A key requirement of the proposed stretch code is that it be ‘adoptable’ as an energy code, meaning that it must align with current code scope and limitations, and primarily impact building components that are currently regulated by local building departments. It is largely limited to prescriptive measures, which are what most building departments and design projects are most familiar with. This report describes a set of energy-efficiency measures (EEMs) that demonstrate 20% energy savings over ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 (ASHRAE 2013) across a broad range of commercial building types and all three climate zones in New York. In collaboration with New Building Institute, the EEMs were developed from national model codes and standards, high-performance building codes and standards, regional energy codes, and measures being proposed as part of the on-going code development process. PNNL analyzed these measures using whole building energy models for selected prototype commercial buildings and multifamily buildings representing buildings in New York. Section 2 of this report describes the analysis methodology, including the building types and construction area weights update for this analysis, the baseline, and the method to conduct the energy saving analysis. Section 3 provides detailed specifications of the EEMs and bundles. Section 4 summarizes the results of individual EEMs and EEM bundles by building type, energy end-use and climate zone. Appendix A documents detailed descriptions of the selected prototype buildings. Appendix B provides energy end-use breakdown results by building type for both the baseline code and stretch code in all climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗