Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Assessments”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Life-Cycle and Techno-Economic Assessment of Early-Stage Carbon Capture and Utilization Technologies—A Discussion of Current Challenges and Best Practices

The mitigation of climate change requires research, development, and deployment of new technologies that are not only economically viable but also environmentally benign. Systematic and continuous technology assessment from early technology maturity onwards allows assessment practitioners to identify economic and environmental characteristics. With this information, decision-makers can focus time and resources on the most promising technologies. A broad toolset for technology assessment exists—stretching from the well-established life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to more loosely defined techno-economic analysis (TEA) methods and the increasingly popular principles of technology maturity assessment such as the concept of technology readiness levels (TRL). However, current technology assessment practice faces various challenges at early stages, resulting in a potential mismatch of study results and stakeholders' needs and an escalation of assessment effort. In this practice review, we outline current challenges in the interplay of LCA, TEA, and TRL and present best practices for assessing early-stage climate change mitigation technologies in the field of carbon capture and utilization (CCU). The findings help practitioners systematically identify the TRL of a technology and adapt technology assessment methodologies accordingly. We highlight the methodological challenges for practitioners when adapting the goal and scope, identifying benchmark technologies, creating a comprehensive inventory, comparing early stage to commercial stage, ensuring clarity of recommendations for decision-making under high uncertainty, and streamlining conventional LCA and TEA assessment approaches and provide actionable recommendations. Overall, this work contributes to identifying promising technologies faster and more systematically, accelerating the development of new technologies for climate change mitigation and beyond.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Multi-Mechanism Flood Hazard Assessment: Critical Review of Current Practice and Approaches

This report documents the initial findings from the Nuclear Regulatory commission (NRC)-sponsored research project Methods for Estimating Joint Probabilities of Coincident and Correlated Flooding Mechanisms for Nuclear Power Plant Flood Hazard Assessments.1 This research project is a part of NRC’s Probabilistic Flood Hazard Assessment (PFHA) Research Program and will aid the development of guidance on the use of PFHA methods to evaluate infrastructure safety for existing and proposed US nuclear power plants (NPPs). More specifically, this project intends to provide technical background for the development of flood hazard curves for multi-mechanism floods (MMFs). MMFs are flood events caused by more than one flooding mechanism (e.g., flood events due to the simultaneous occurrence of precipitation-induced river flooding and storm surge). Project activities include three main tasks: Task 1—Survey of current concepts and methods in assessing MMF hazards; Task 2—Critical assessment of selected methods and approaches for quantifying probabilistic MMF hazard risk; Task 3—Development of example case studies to illustrate best practices for quantifying probabilistic MMF hazard risk The initial findings from Tasks 1 and 2 are documented in this report. Task 1 comprised a survey of approaches and methods that have been applied to understand and assess flood hazards due to MMFs. Task 2 involved a critical review of the selected approaches and methods. To that end, the scope of this report includes documentation of (1) a reconnaissance-level survey of the current state of concepts and practice for MMF hazard assessment; (2) a generalized MMF assessment framework to address the distinctions among various types of flood-forcing phenomena, flood mechanisms (grouped into three mechanism types), and flood severity metrics; (3) a wide-ranging survey of approaches and methods that have been applied to various flooding phenomena and settings; and (4) a critical assessment of MMF hazard assessment methods. Studies were identified involving MMFs related to coastal flooding mechanisms, fluvial (rivers/streams) flooding mechanisms, and associated combinations of coastal and fluvial flooding mechanisms. Studies were also identified that address MMFs involving coastal and fluvial flooding mechanisms as well as coastal flooding mechanisms along with extreme precipitation (without specific attribution to fluvial or pluvial mechanisms). The studies identified for review in this report included assessments at varying spatial scales (from local to global) with differing geographic regions of focus using both observed and synthetic data. The majority of studies identified and reviewed were site-specific assessments focusing on relatively short return periods. Studies considered a range of flood severity metrics, made differing assumptions regarding the occurrence of extrema, and used multiple statistical techniques; the use of copulas for the development of joint distributions was a particularly popular analysis technique. The literature review highlighted the differences among existing studies relative to terminology used, means of presenting results, framework and techniques employed, and level of sophistication regarding the number and types of variables considered. Despite the significant diversity in existing studies, the review identified several promising techniques that will be considered in future work under this project, including the development of joint distributions for MMFs using copula and Bayesian-motivated approaches.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2022

The current state of the industrial energy assessment and its impacts on the manufacturing industry

Energy-intensive manufacturing is the greatest contributor to the U.S. industrial energy consumption today. Globally, manufacturing facilities are being directed to reduce their energy consumption to prepare for a sustainable future. Industrial energy assessment plays a crucial role in helping facilities meet their energy efficiency goals by encouraging the implementation of cost-effective, energy-saving recommendations to the existing equipment and processes. Across the world, programs such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs) (operational across several states in the U.S. for over four decades), are transforming the future of industrial energy consumption by offering free industrial energy assessments to qualifying facilities. In this review paper, the industrial energy assessment approach and practices are comprehensively reviewed with focus on popular recommendations, procedures, and the current practices of the industrial energy assessment program. Specifically, opportunities for improvement in the most energy-intensive manufacturing processes are examined, concentrating on the energy savings and other non-energy benefits of each of these measures, such as cost savings and emissions reduction. Furthermore, this paper also reviews how these energy-saving opportunities are procedurally evaluated and how factors, such as level and cost of assessments, and assessment metrics, are currently defining industrial energy assessment. In final considerations, existing research on energy management, decarbonization through electrification, and renewable energy in industry is reviewed and discussed, and how these advancements will shape the future of industrial energy assessment is addressed through forward-looking lenses.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Dashboard for Marine Energy Site Assessment and Monitoring

The marine energy (ME) industry presently relies upon fragmented site assessment solutions that require high resource expenditure for deployment at each site and do not leverage the wealth of readily available tools and information. A wave energy resource assessment dashboard, currently in development, will substantially improve siting, permitting, operations, and maintenance of ME projects by providing an integrated solution that is a one-stop-shop for a developer’s needs. The Site Energy Assessment and MOnitoring Dashboard (SEAMOD) will be of commercial interest to anyone seeking to deploy an ME project and is easily expandable to include tidal and wind energy site assessments. The integrated dashboard is being developed using state-of-the-art database and cloud computing methods and data-assimilative modeling tools that can be coupled with low-cost, rapidly deployable wave buoys and environmental sensing hardware. The combined software and hardware dashboard will reduce wave energy site characterization and wave climate monitoring costs by more than 60 percent and provide assessments that meet international industry standards. To realize a thriving global ME industry, the physical environment at a potential deployment site must be understood, not only for resource characterization, but also for optimization of device and power conversion performance. SEAMOD directly addresses these needs with a commercially marketable product. SEAMOD is a low-cost solution that provides comprehensive ME resource assessments, baseline environmental monitoring, and offshore characterizations required for successful ME development. The key technical objectives for Phase I were a series of software development goals, which when implemented with monitoring solutions, produced an initial proof-of-concept low-cost wave energy resources dashboard. In Phase II, the development of the prototype SEAMOD continued. The basic framework employed was the development of a revised dashboard and monitoring tool customized for ME applications by focusing on IEC site assessment and method requirements. Development was focused on the integration of full hindcast metocean products to provide hindcast resource characterization and environmental information. The final integrated dashboard provides a low-cost solution that delivers comprehensive, scalable, industry-standard energy resource assessments and offshore characterizations required for successful ME development. The integrated dashboard offers visibility of the most recent site modeling, measurements, and historical data. The application and integration of consensus-based standards for wave energy resource assessment, as determined by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), are crucial for the impact and value of SEAMOD. SEAMOD includes monthly, seasonal, and yearly statistics, as well as the total 30-year record, offering temporal resolution of the IEC parameters to aid potential developers in determining the available wave energy resources in their area of interest.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Guide for Improved Resource Adequacy Assessments in Evolving Power Systems: Institutional and Technical Dimensions

This paper identifies and evaluates issues in traditional resource adequacy (RA) assessment practices, and how adjusting these practices may affect and depend on existing institutional arrangements for planning and procurement. The paper proposes a technical-institutional roadmap that would allow regulators in vertically-integrated jurisdictions and system planners and operators in restructured jurisdictions to revise RA practices across a range of components. First, we compile a critical review of current RA assessment practices based on (1) interviews with RA practitioners and (2) a review of recent technical literature. We find that (i) RA may need to expand beyond capacity adequacy to ensure energy adequacy – relevant for energy-limited resources such as storage – and potentially some form of ancillary service adequacy (e.g. enough ramping-up and ramping-down capability in the system); (ii) chronological hourly simulations for all hours in the year are the current best practice; (iii) metrics and models used do not reflect economic criteria in system operation and loss of load; and (iv) there is a need to improve representation of weather dependencies and weather data. Second, we review planning and RA reports for several private and public entities that plan generation and/or transmission infrastructure in the continental U.S. to look for existing practices involving resilience assessments. We find no systematic treatment of the costs of extreme weather and other hazards, the benefits of resilience, and resilience metrics in planning analyses and no systematic treatment of resilience metrics, methods, and outcomes for resource adequacy purposes. Third, we create a technical framework for probabilistic RA assessment and use it to study how key choices about how to model power system operations affect the values that are obtained for RA metrics. We find that (i) non-economic dispatch schemes that ignore economic objectives can lead to accurate RA assessments when coordinated with detailed operational strategies; (ii) multi-year data is critical to capture a wide variety of system conditions; (iii) not incorporating transmission limits into RA assessment could lead to substantial underestimation of traditional “expected value” RA metrics; and (iv) new RA metrics that capture event-specific shortfall characteristics should be used as supplements to traditional metrics. Finally, we examine RA assessments and use this information to propose a guide of evolving industry standards for resource adequacy assessments in resource planning and transmission planning. We report minimum, best, and frontier practices for temporal resolution of assessments, metrics and targets, weather data, load forecasting, characterization of variable renewable resources, characterization of transmission and market transactions, RA modeling and integration with planning processes, and capacity accreditation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Syracuse University Industrial Assessment Center (Final Report)

Syracuse University Industrial Assessment Center (SU-IAC) project is focused on the two primary objectives: (i) educate undergraduate and graduate students in engineering and associated disciplines on the concepts of energy sustainability and to provide hands-on training by performing energy assessment at industrial facilities to become future energy efficiency experts, and (ii) offer energy assessments to small and mid-sized manufacturing companies in SU-IAC 2 the greater New York State region, perform analytical engineering work in support of assessment recommendations, and to report the results of those analyses to the client companies, to DOE, and to Field office personnel Through this project period, SU-IAC successfully trained 77 engineering students who were undergraduate or graduate students at Syracuse University College of Engineering, or at SU- IAC’s satellite center at Clarkson University. Each of these students received comprehensive ‘in-class’ technical training, safety training, and hands-on field training. The students performed various tasks related to energy assessment at the manufacturing facilities, including billing analysis, energy use reduction recommendations, and report preparation. Through this project period, a total of 34 students have completed all requirements of the SU-IAC program and have received the US DoE Certificate on Energy Efficiency, with the remaining students continuing at various stages of field work or training. During this project period, due to Covid-related measures in New York State, Syracuse University campus and most of the manufacturing facilities were completely closed or were under severe restrictions for access, for an extended period from March 2020 through April 2021. The closures affected our project execution, with the project Sponsor offering structured relief to carry-out a modified project during the affected budget periods. During this project period, SU-IAC student teams, led by its Director, completed a total of 77 energy assessments at small- and medium-scale manufacturing facilities located in New York State. For these facilities, SU-IAC prepared and presented details for 569 assessment recommendations (ARs). The facilities implemented a total of 258 of these ARs, realizing annual average energy savings in the range of $\$ $3,300 to $\$ $55,000 per facility. Cumulatively, these facilities have reduced their “first year after implementation” energy use by a total of 4.37 million kwh, and fuel use by a total of 27.7 billion BTU. SU-IAC project has successfully met the two primary objectives (and the associated sub objectives) and helped the manufacturing facilities in New York State achieve quantitative energy use reductions as a result of this project.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

GeoRePORT Protocol Volume VI: Resource Size Assessment Tool

GeoRePORT is based on the concept that a geothermal system can be described both in terms of the quality of the geothermal resource as it relates to the potential to extract heat ("Resource Grade") and the progress of research and development over the lifetime of the project ("Project Progress"). Resource grade and project progress are reported for three assessment categories: geologic, technical, and socio-economic. Each category has specific criteria and guidelines for assessing both resource grade and project progress, as outlined in each of the following assessment tools (and associated colors): (1) Geological Assessment Tool (representative colors: reds, oranges, browns); (2) Technical Assessment Tool (representative colors: blues, purples); (3) Socio-Economic Assessment Tool (representative colors: greens, yellows). Additionally, users may need to estimate the project size (often reported in MWe or MWth). The resource size assessment tool (RSAT) is an essential addition to GeoRePORT due to the economic and legal context of geothermal development. In order to utilize a geothermal resource, a competitive Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), or similar, often must be obtained, for which the resource's power capacity must be demonstrated. To determine that a geothermal heat or power project is worthy of development, investors or other funding mechanisms often require information on the anticipated heat and/or power potential of the reservoir. They might also be interested in the certainty of that estimate. However, proving the existence and size of a geothermal resource is comparatively expensive and risky relative to other renewable technologies; it can cost developers 5 to 10 million USD to demonstrate a financially viable geothermal resource (Young et al. 2017). GeoRePORT aims to address this barrier to development by providing a consistent and clear assessment of resource quality and certainty. The RSAT will enable GeoRePORT users to not only qualitatively report on a given a resource, but also to compare standard methodologies for quantitatively estimating a resource size in terms of potential heat and/or power output.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Colorado State University Extension Industrial Assessment Center

Since its inception in 1984, the Colorado State University Industrial Assessment Center has performed industrial assessments at more than 720 manufacturing facilities in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. From 2017 to 2019 there was a funding gap and the IAC shutdown. In 2020 through DOE extension funding the University relaunched the IAC as an extension center in order to provide assessments to underserved areas. Under this award, the CSU Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) was rebuilt with the help of student employees and the director. The CSU team experienced difficulty as the program was in the process of being restarted right as the 2020 pandemic hit. Nonetheless, the CSU IAC was instrumental in providing energy assessments to manufacturers in Colorado and Wyoming during the period of performance of 09/2019 – 12/2022. The Department of Energy's Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs) provide a valuable service to small and medium-sized manufacturers seeking to optimize their operations. These university-based centers offer no-cost, on-site assessments conducted by engineering faculty and students, analyzing energy consumption, production processes, and waste streams. They utilize advanced data acquisition systems to record operational data, and then use the data to create assessment recommendations. These recommendations form the foundation of the comprehensive energy report. The comprehensive report delivers actionable recommendations for enhancing energy efficiency, reducing waste, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving productivity, often identifying significant cost savings. Furthermore, IACs facilitate access to implementation grants, enabling the businesses to readily adopt these improvements. This program not only strengthens individual businesses but also contributes to national goals of training the next generation of energy experts, as well as increasing industrial competitiveness and reduced environmental impact.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

DPSIR-ESA Vulnerability Assessment (DEVA) Framework: Synthesis, Foundational Overview, and Expert Case Studies

Land resources are central to understanding the relationship between humans and their environment. We broadly define a land resource to include all the ecological resources of climate, water, soil, landforms, flora, and fauna, and all the socioeconomic systems that interact with agriculture, forestry, and other land uses within some system boundary. Understanding the vulnerability of land resources to changes in land management or climate forcing is critical to developing sustainable land management strategies. Vulnerability assessments are complex given the multiple uses of the assessments, the multi-disciplinary nature of the problem, limited understanding, the dynamic structure of vulnerability, scale issues, and problems with identifying effective vulnerability indicators. Here, we propose a novel conceptual framework for vulnerability assessments of land resources that combines the driver– pressure–state–impact–response (DPSIR) framework adopted by the European Environment Agency to describe interactions between society and the environment, and the exposure-sensitivity-adaptive capacity (ESA) framework used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess impacts of climate change. The DPSIR-ESA Vulnerability Assessment (DEVA) framework operationalizes the process of assessing the vulnerability of a target system to external stressors. The DEVA framework includes the following elements: 1) Definition of the target system (Land resource), 2) Description of internal characteristics of the target system (State), 3) Description of target system vulnerability indicators (Adaptive capacity, Sensitivity), 4) Description of stressor characteristics (Drivers, Pressures), 5) Description of stressor vulnerability indicators (Exposure), 6) Description of target system response to stressors (Impacts), and 7) Description of modifications to target systems or stressors (Responses). In stating that they have “applied the DEVA framework”, analysts acknowledge that they have (a) considered the full breadth of each DEVA element, (b) have made conscious decisions to limit the scope and complexity of certain elements, and (c) can communicate both the rationale for these decisions and the impact of these decisions on the vulnerability assessment results and recommendations. The DEVA framework was refined during invited presentations and follow-up discussions from a series of Special Sessions with leading experts at two successive ASABE Annual International Meetings. Six case studies drawn from the sessions elaborate upon the DEVA framework and provide concrete examples of the key concepts. The DEVA approach gives engineers, planners, and analysts a new, flexible framework to apply a broad array of useful tools toward assessment of land resource system vulnerability.

Anandhi, Aauvadi↗
DOE OSTI2022

NRAP-Open-IAM: NRAP Open Source Integrated Assessment Model

Note: This is the last version (a2.6.1) of NRAP-Open-IAM released during NRAP Phase II in 2022. The latest version of NRAP-Open-IAM is available here: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/phase-iii-nrap-open-iam NRAP-Open-IAM is an open-source software product that enables quantification of containment effectiveness and leakage risk at storage sites in the context of system uncertainties and variability. NRAP-Open-IAM represents the next-generation in a line of systems-based computational models developed for quantitative geological carbon storage (GCS) risk assessment. The model comprises a set of reduced-order and analytical models of various components of the GCS system, potential leakage pathways, receptors of concern including impact to groundwater resources and the atmosphere, a framework to support stochastic simulation, time stepping, uncertainty quantification, other analytical functionality for scenario and risk-performance evaluation, and a basic graphical user interface to support scenario development, data input simulation definition, and basic post-processing and results display. As the NRAP Open-IAM functionality continues to evolve, we continue to add to its capability to develop quantitative, probabilistic, and time-dependent profiles of the evolution of risk at a GCS site and evaluate the influence of uncertain parameters on uncertainty in predicted risk. It can be used to quantify the dynamics of reservoir saturation plume and pressure-affected area, for evaluation of the area of potential groundwater impact (i.e., Area of Review) and monitoring requirements to support cost and regulatory analysis, and for consideration of different post-injection site care and closure scenarios. This submission contains the current version of NRAP-Open-IAM available for evaluation and testing. To use the NRAP-Open-IAM, download the source code (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/4c24a3da-3b40-4ffe-9892-c807ae9f8760) then open the NRAP-Open-IAM user's guide (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669) to read more about the tool. Installation instructions for Windows, Mac, and Linux can be found in the "installers" folder of the extracted NRAP-Open-IAM folder and describe setup of environment (e.g., Python libraries) needed for proper work of the tool. Test of installation can be done by running "python openiam_setup_tests.py" in the "setup" folder. The installation test also runs a test suite to see if the NRAP-Open-IAM has been installed correctly. To run the test suite separately, run "python iam_test.py" in the "test" folder. User's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669 Developer's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/3bc6ee7d-609d-4eb6-80ba-fa6130ee0313 Reservoir simulation data used in some examples distributed with NRAP-Open-IAM: - Kimberlina: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/eb62cece-61b2-4037-9b6d-32407dde2ab8 - Kimberlina (compartmentalized): https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/366f9530-3b32-4b84-affe-ab2df1d9a8b5 - FutureGen 2.0: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/futuregen-2-0-1008-simulation-reservoir-lookup-table NRAP-Open-IAM GitLab repository: https://gitlab.com/NRAP/OpenIAM Related publications: - Bacon, D., Yonkofski, C., Brown, C., Demirkanli, D. and Whiting, J., 2019. Risk-based post injection site care and monitoring for commercial-scale carbon storage: Reevaluation of the FutureGen 2.0 site using NRAP-Open-IAM and DREAM. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90: 102784. - Bacon, D. Demirkanli, D., and White, S., 2020. Probabilistic risk-based Area of Review (AoR) determination for a deep-saline carbon storage site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 102: 103153. - Harp, D., Oldenburg, C., and Pawar, R., 2019. A metric for evaluating conformance robustness during geologic CO2 sequestration operations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85: 100-108. - Lackey, G., Vasylkivska, V., Huerta, N., King, S., and Dilmore, R., 2019. Managing well leakage risks at a geologic carbon storage site with many wells, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 88 :182-194. - Vasylkivska, V., Dilmore, R., Lackey, G., Zhang, Y., King, S., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., and Harp, D., 2021. NRAP-Open-IAM: A flexible open-source integrated assessment model for geologic carbon storage risk assessment and management, Environmental Modelling & Software, 143: 105114. Presentations: - Chen, B., Harp, D., and Pawar, R., A data assimilation approach (ES-MDA) coupling with NRAP-Open-IAM for quantifying uncertainty reduction in geological CO2 sequestration. AGUFM 2019: T44A-02. - Chen, B., and Harp, D., Improving risk analysis precision for geologic CO2 sequestration by quantifying the uncertainty reduction before and after acquiring monitoring data. 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2018, pp. 21-26. - Harp, D., National Risk Assessment Partnership Task 2: Containment Assurance. No. LA-UR-19-28654, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., King, S., Bacon, D., Harp, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., Onishi, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., and Keating, E., NRAP-Open-IAM: An open-source integrated assessment model, poster, Mastering the Subsurface Through Technology Innovation, Partnerships and Collaboration: Carbon Storage and Oil and Natural Gas Technologies Review Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 13-16, 2018. - Vasylkivska, V., Lackey, G., King, S., Wentworth, A., Huerta, N., Creason, C., DiGiulio, J., Yang, Y., and Dilmore, R., Long-term risk analysis of a geologic CO2 storage project during the post-injection period, SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Spokane, WA, February 25-March 1, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Overview of the NRAP-Open-IAM tool for carbon storage (beta release), 2019 Annual NRAP Tool Users Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 27, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Dilmore, R., Harp, D., King, S., Lackey, G., Lindner, E., Liu, G., Mansoor, K. and Zhang, Y., NRAP-Open-IAM: A new, open-source code for integrated assessment of geologic carbon storage containment effectiveness and leakage risk, poster, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2020 (virtual meeting), December 2020. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP open-source integrated assessment model and relevant application, oral presentation, NRAP workshop "NRAP Tools for Geologic Carbon Storage Risk-Based Decision Making" held in conjunction with Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) 2021 Annual Forum (virtual meeting), Salt Lake City, UT, September 2021. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP-Open-IAM: open-source integrated assessment model, digital poster/demonstration, software demonstration session, 2022 Carbon Management Project Review Meeting, August 16, 2022

AoR↗
DOE OSTI2020

Performance Assessments of Demand Flexibility from Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings: Issues and Considerations

This SEE Action Network report explains basic concepts and fundamental considerations for assessing the actual demand flexibility performance of buildings participating in demand flexibility programs and responding to time-varying retail rates. Demand flexibility is the capability of distributed energy resources (DERs) to adjust a building’s load profile across different timescales. Assessments determine the timing, location, quantity, and quality of grid services provided. The results can be used for financial settlements and to improve performance of demand flexibility, support its consideration in resource potential studies and electricity system planning, and contribute to cost-effectiveness evaluations. While practitioners and regulators regularly find opportunities to improve performance assessments of demand-related services, to a large degree current best practices are sufficient for basic service offerings as demand flexibility is implemented today. However, advances in assessment practices will be required in a future with grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) that provide continuous demand flexibility by integrating multiple DERs and flexibility modes (load shed, load shift, modulate, and generate). Example practices include using new baseline constructs—including whether baselines are even required for certain building flexibility modes or configurations, deploying more advanced metering and analytics, further developing cybersecurity standards, improving communication standards for increased interoperability, and establishing performance metrics and assessment procedures for load modulation as it is more fully defined and implemented. This report provides information on prioritizing and designing performance assessment elements for demand flexibility programs and time-varying retail rates, assessment protocols, and research and development needs. Additional research sponsored by DOE’s Building Technologies Office offers more detailed technical information on assessing performance of demand flexibility, including definition of performance metrics.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Industrial Assessment Center – integration of education and practice. Final progress report

The goal of the DOE’s Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) program is twofold: first, to help US manufacturing competitiveness by providing assessments and recommendations for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) on energy efficiency, productivity, sustainability and competitiveness – including measuring the impacts of these recommendations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and second, to address a growing shortage of engineering professionals with applied energy and manufacturing-related skills by training a diverse cross-section of engineering students through hands-on involvement in these assessments. IUPUI has an IAC, which was established in 2011, in the Department of Mechanical and Energy Engineering, Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI. The IAC has won the awards twice. We have built the center that has the expertise and infrastructure for quality energy assessments to manufactures and commercial building owners and aligned our current research and teaching activities to the DOE’ training mission with programs to train the next generation of industrial energy efficiency experts, with theory and hands-on experience in conducting energy assessment for small and median manufacturing enterprises. We have made recommendations that have the potential to save about $20M annually. We also initiated research projects to meet DOE priorities, specifically in the areas of smart manufacturing and cybersecurity. On the energy assessment side, the Center has provided energy assessments to 144 qualified companies, primarily located in Indiana. On the training side, the center has trained students in various programs, such as the department’s Bachelor of Science (BS) programs in Mechanical Engineering (ME) and BS in Energy Engineering (EEN), both are ABET accredited engineering programs, as well as a graduate level Energy Management and Assessment certificate program. At the present, the center has trained 95 students, 43 or them received the DOE issued certificates. Research projects were developed within the center to advance energy efficiency related technologies, which provided excellent opportunities for our trainees. The center has also been building a professional network with utilities, Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), government agencies, and manufacturing companies, to increase our client base and promote collaborations. The center received the 2019 Center of Excellence of the Year Award and three students received the “Outstanding Achievement in Energy Engineering by an IAC Student” awards in the past five years.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Bio-project “derisking” through development of systematic methodologies and frameworks for risk assessment

One of the primary hindrances to producing a viable, sustainable domestic biomass industry for renewable biofuels, bio-products and bio-power is the lack of understanding and quantification of the risks associated with both the biomass supply chain and preprocessing and conversion technologies. Currently a consistent method for assessing, comparing, and quantifying risks in biomass supply chains does not exist, creating a major investment barrier to bioenergy projects in the U.S. The lack of a standardized approach has resulted in bioenergy stakeholders independently using inconsistent approaches and evaluation criteria, leading to unreliable and incomparable assessments of risks and financing barriers to bio-project development. Along with the challenges of inconsistent risk assessment for supply chain risk, technology specific risks based on variability in biomass properties are not fully understood and can pose significant unforeseen challenges for bioenergy projects. In many cases these properties have not yet been identified and the impacts on the proposed technology and products unquantified. This is particularly challenging for emerging preprocessing and conversion technologies. Without a firm understanding of the preprocessing/conversion technology-specific critical properties, the risk of a proposed bio-project cannot be fully evaluated. To address inconsistent risk evaluation in the biomass supply chain supporting project financing, a Biomass Supply Chain Risk Standards (BSCRS) framework was developed. The BSCRS framework includes a comprehensive list of known and perceived risks (Risk Indicators) to the supply chain developed through 100’s of interviews with bioenergy industry experts spanning from feedstock growers and suppliers to representatives from the financial sector. These risks have been organized into a manageable hierarchy of Risk Categories and Risk Factors that can be practically assessed. This BSCRS framework also provides mitigation strategies for multiple Risk Indicators from best available industry practices and research findings. Additionally, a risk quantification methodology for each Risk Factor, Risk Category, and the bio-project as a whole was developed to enable capital markets to assess feedstock risk more efficiently and more accurately. Multiple case studies representing existing bio-projects have been used to evaluate and verify the BSCRS framework and scoring methodology. To address technological risk along with the supply chain risk captured in the developed BSCRS framework, this work also focuses on development of a systematic criticality assessment tool using well-accepted, quantitative risk analysis methods to evaluate bioenergy feedstock critical properties impacting system unit operations. The proposed Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) approach uses a team of subject area experts (SAEs) for each targeted unit operation within a system. Collectively, the team will develop and use a quantitative scoring system to assess the material attributes, process parameters, and quality attributes for key unit operations that have already been identified. The FMEA process generates Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) for the various failures and predominant causes for each material/process unit/product combination resulting in a semi-quantitative, standardized methodology for assessing technological risk and biomass properties contributing to that risk.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Special Analyses for the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment - 20102

In 2014, the Department of Energy (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 Site's Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). The IDF is a doubly-lined landfill that was constructed between 2004 and 2006 to be the disposal facility for the vitrified low-activity waste that will be produced at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). IDF is also expected to receive solid secondary waste produced at the WTP and other solid wastes from site activities. The IDF has been in a preoperational state awaiting authorization from DOE and a RCRA permit modification from the State of Washington Department of Ecology to receive waste. Both the Disposal Authorization Statement and permit modification require a performance assessment demonstrating that the system of engineered and natural features will limit releases of radionuclides and hazardous chemicals from the IDF and be protective of human health and the environment. The simulated duration is 10,000 years. Based on the analyses presented in the 2017 Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment, DOE issued a conditional Operating Disposal Authorization Statement for the IDF in June 2018. The long-term performance of the IDF to be protective of human health and the environment was evaluated under the requirements of DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. Computer simulations were performed to evaluate whether or not the IDF would comply with DOE requirements. In the time that has passed since the performance assessment was approved by DOE, new information has been discovered that had not been considered in the performance assessment. Since this new information has not been evaluated, the potential impact of the changes have not been taken into consideration in DoE's disposal authorization. DOE and its contractors follow a change control process to screen and, when necessary, evaluate new information that could potentially impact the conclusions of the completed performance assessment. This paper will describe the change control process and provide two examples of evaluations performed following the change control process. The first example evaluates a new waste form for liquid secondary waste that was not evaluated in the performance assessment. In the performance assessment, liquid secondary waste was assumed to be solidified with grout. A new recommendation to dispose of the liquid secondary waste after drying it to a powder was evaluated. The second example evaluates inventory implications from changes to the flow sheet that estimates the feed composition to the low-activity waste vitrification facility. The changes result in higher strontium concentrations in the vitrified waste stream. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Understanding the Uncertainty in the Technical Performance Level Assessment for Wave Energy

In recent years, the design and development of wave energy converters (WECs) has been explored with intense interest, with highly varying design concepts emerging globally across both research enterprises and industry. The design space for WECs is vast - many concepts ranging in functionality, control systems, power development systems, materials, and scale have been ideated and prototyped, but WEC technology has yet to converge. One critical element of the technology trajectory that governs the speed of adoption is the performance of a WEC concept. In analogous but more-established industries (such as aerospace, and environmentally sustainable electronics design), performance assessment is a quantitative method, based on historical data, that is used as an iterative tool to improve the design of these systems early on in the design process. Though more nascent than these approaches, in wave energy R&D, WEC performance has been assessed using the Technology Performance Level (TPL) assessment, which provides designers with a quantitative score, situating a grid-scale WEC concept on a scale from 1-9 (1 being the lowest performance, and 9 being the highest, trending with the oft-used Technology Readiness Level, or TRL). The TPL assessment is designed to be used during design iteration, when a WEC concept is fully ideated, to enable designers to consider potential means of improving the downstream performance of the concept. One concern that may be slowing the adoption of TPL among WEC developers is the inherent uncertainty in the assessment, and how uncertainty in the individual questions asked as part of the assessment may contribute to perceived inaccuracies in the final score. In this work, we explore the uncertainty present in the assessment and quantify this uncertainty using both traditional mathematical operations and a Monte Carlo simulation. Results imply areas of improvement of the TPL assessment, where reducing uncertainty will be most helpful to end users, enabling both TPL practitioners and users to understand with more accuracy those design elements that can be improved to impact device performance most substantively.

techno-economic analysis↗
DOE OSTI2024

Digitalization mapping and assessment process supporting ION strategic transformation activities

The existing fleet of commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) are an important asset in the nation’s portfolio of electrical generating resources. Their continued safe and reliable operation are critical to providing a large source of carbon-free electricity to power the nation’s economy. The United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program develops the scientific bases, methods, and tools, for the continued safe and economical operation of the nation's commercial NPPs. The Plant Modernization Pathway within LWRS Program focuses on providing guidance to industry on the full-scale implementation of modernization solutions for NPPs that significantly reduce the technical and financial risks associated with modernization. This research is focused on helping the nuclear industry understand how to digitize and digitalize their NPPs so that they can design their modernization solutions to be scalable, sustainable, and integrated both laterally and horizontally within their organization. That is, this research creates a digital transformation in NPPs by reshaping cultural mindsets and by identifying business efficiencies. In partnership with industry, and using four previously established guiding principles for digitalization, this research supported NPP modernization through assessing readiness for digitalization as a means to achieve integrated operations for nuclear. Specifically, this research created an assessment to review an entire organization’s work processes to gather information about the digitalization health of the plant. The assessment tools were administered to plant employees, and the results were used to develop a digitalization plan. The survey assessment identified the optimal candidate processes that would most benefit from a digitalization initiative which were revealed through analytical frameworks. One analysis calculated mean digitalization health indicator scores for all endorsed activities which allowed the researchers to rank and color code the results for easy identification. Individual health indicator scores are also provided, should our industry partner wish to understand these findings according to their own organizational priorities, business considerations and desired end-state. The results were also analyzed from the perspective that organizations are comprised of different types of innovators (e.g., generators, optimizers, conceptualizers, and implementers), which differentially affects the organization’s ability to comprehend and adapt to change (i.e., opportunities to innovate). Understanding the relative composition of innovator types at an NPP allows them to gather insights into the strengths and weaknesses they have in innovating how work is performed. For the utility that partnered with this research team, the results showed that implementers make up the largest portion of respondents and conceptualizers the smallest portion. Knowing the proportion of innovator types gave this organization insights on how they can effectively implement their innovation solutions. Additionally, the results were analyzed from a technical, economic, and risk perspective to identify and quantify work reduction opportunities (WROs). Recognizing that not all cost-saving opportunities are the same, a Technical, Economic and Risk Assessment (TERA) was performed to evaluate WROs to identify areas of greatest potential and lowest risk. The key results from TERA included a digitalization opportunity score for each activity, and a calculation of potential cost savings. These two outputs formed the bases for calculating a priority index and rank for the activities/processes assessed. From the prioritization calculations, TERA can then help the utility 1) decide what digitalization priorities to invest money in implementing and then 2) calculates how much should be invested in the digitalization initiatives selected to achieve cost savings and/or an acceptable return on investment. Last, onsite interviews revealed several inefficiencies in the standard work processes that occur cross-departmentally that are due to the absence of digitized and digitalized processes. Examples of these include time spent scanning paper documents and then uploading the documents electronically, obtaining signatures, and searching for desired information. This represents a digital but not digitalized process. Over 15 opportunities to improve work processes were identified through this multi-method digitalization assessment. The various analytical assessments used (e.g., TERA, digitalization health indicator scores), as well as discussions with the utility partner, corroborated that all the opportunities identified had a strong potential to make work processes more efficient and to improve overall performance of the NPP.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hazards and Probabilistic Risk Assessments of a Light-Water Reactor Coupled with Industrial Facilities

This report provides a roadmap and toolkit for site-specific risk assessments across a broad range of industrial customers co-located with nuclear power plants (NPPs). This report builds upon the body of work sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) Light-Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Flexible Plant Operation and Generation Pathway that presented hazards assessment and generic probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for the addition of a heat extraction system (HES) to light-water reactors co-located with hydrogen production facilities. The report expands the hazards assessments to include other industrial facilities: an oil refinery, a methanol plant, a synthetic fuel (synfuel) plant, the production of synthetic gas (syngas) as part of the methanol and synfuel plants, and wood pulp and paper mills. All these facilities are specified through industrial process and requirements research performed by national laboratories, universities, and interaction with industry. Many of the processes used in this report are pre-conceptual designs to use for decarbonization of the current technology facilities. A process of failure modes and effects analysis (what can go wrong) and accidentology (what has historically gone wrong) was used to determine the hazards presented to the NPP by the addition of the HES and the industrial customer. Chemical properties of feedstocks and products are summarized as part of the hazards assessment. Example analysis procedures are provided for each of the hazard types identified. These deterministic analyses can be used to assess adherence to licensing criteria. They can also be used to meet other safety goals like protection of the public, workers, or industrial facility equipment. The probabilistic analysis consisted of three sizes of HESs modeled in a PRA to assess the impact on the initiating events (IE) and results of the PRA. The PRA results conclude that the resulting increases in IE frequencies are below the limits required for small changes to existing NPPs under 10 CFR 50.59.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Choosing the Right Tool: A Comparative Study of Wetland Assessment Approaches

There are over 700 aquatic ecological assessment approaches across the globe that meet specific institutional goals. However, in many cases, multiple assessment tools are designed to meet the same management need, resulting in a confusing array of overlapping options. Here, we look at six riverine wetland assessments currently in use in Montana, USA, and ask which tool (1) best captures the condition across a disturbance gradient and (2) has the most utility to meet the regulatory or management needs. We used descriptive statistics to compare wetland assessments (n = 18) across a disturbance gradient determined by a landscape development intensity. Factor analysis showed that many of the tools had internal metrics that did not correspond well with overall results, hindering the tool’s ability to act as designed. We surveyed regional wetland managers (n = 56) to determine the extent of their use of each of the six tools and how well they trusted the information the assessment tool provided. We found that the Montana Wetland Assessment Methodology best measured the range of disturbance and had the highest utility to meet Clean Water Act (CWA§ 404) needs. Montana Department of Environmental Quality was best for the CWA§ 303(d) & 305(b) needs. The US Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Riparian Assessment Tool was the third most used by managers but was the tool that had the least ability to distinguish across a disturbance, followed by the US Bureau of Land Management’s Proper Functioning Condition.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗