Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “security exchange”

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.

131 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Advanced Sensors and Instrumentation (ASI) Program Plan. Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies (NEET)

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) sponsors a crosscutting technology development (CTD) program addressing common instrumentation & controls (I&C) needs in all DOE-NE sponsored programs. In 2012, DOE-NE initiated the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technology (NEET) Program to conduct research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) in crosscutting technologies that directly support and enable the development of existing, new and advanced reactor designs, and fuel cycle technologies. These technologies will advance the state of nuclear technology, improve its competitiveness, and promote continued contribution to meeting our Nation’s energy and environmental challenges. The NEET Program has spurred innovation in the field of sensors and instrumentation, advanced methods for manufacturing, and cyber security. The Advanced Sensors and Instrumentation (ASI) program is one element of the NEET CTD that has spurred innovation in the measurement science field by funding research on sensors, instrumentation and controls, communication, and advanced analytics that measure system parameters, gauge component control input, and provide power plant owners and operators critical awareness so they can plan and safely manage operational evolutions. The NEET ASI Program has carried out research and development (R&D) required to develop and deploy innovative and advanced sensors, and instrumentation and control capabilities for current and future nuclear energy systems, and to enable the advanced technologies essential to NE’s R&D efforts needed to realize mission goals. The concept of technology readiness assessment is helpful for the classification of instrumentation technology as part of the program strategy. A technology readiness assessment evaluates technology maturity using the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale and was pioneered by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the 1980s for space technology. It has recently been adopted to advance fuels and materials. The NEET ASI program objective is to mature instruments technology to TRL 6, which is “demonstration of the technology in relevant environment.” While there may be instances in which a different strategy is justified, the aim of the program is to respond to DOE program and stakeholder needs for nuclear instrumentation then hand off the technology after demonstration for integration in a more complex system, for example an irradiation test, experimental loop or a plant component such as the core, primary system or heat exchanger. A mechanism to continue some level of support from NEET ASI during and after the adoption (for example, to maintain fabrication and calibration capabilities) will be defined as the first example of technology hand off comes to fruition. In addition, several paths exist within DOE to complement NEET ASI activities to extend the maturity beyond TRL, for example through GAIN, technology commercialization funding, and small-business programs. Role of NEET ASI CINR projects in the TRL space, and integration with direct funded demonstration.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hydrogen and its Vital Role in a Clean Energy Future

Large-scale, low -cost hydrogen production can enable an economically competitive, secure, and environmentally beneficial future energy system across multiple sectors. Furthermore, clean hydrogen can address specific sectors that are hard to decarbonize (e.g., heavy-duty trucking, load-following electricity, iron, steel, and cement) and can help the U.S. meet the net zero carbon goal by 2050. To achieve this goal, tens of millions of metric tons of clean, reliable, and affordable hydrogen will be needed annually1. In 2021, the Hydrogen Energy Earthshot was launched, and its goal is to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen to $1 per $1 kilogram in 1 decade (1 1 1) 2. One very promising pathway for large-scale hydrogen production is water splitting. Water splitting technologies range from commercial technologies such as electrolyzers to approaches that are at a much earlier stage of development, such as photoelectrochemical (PEC) and thermochemical (TCH) processes. All these water splitting pathways offer diverse benefits in energy storage, grid services, and cross-sector emissions reductions while taking advantage of the diverse domestic resources. However, critical materials-, component- and system-level challenges must be addressed to improve efficiency and durability and reduce cost. To address these barriers and move these promising and high impact technologies forward, the HydroGEN Advanced Water Splitting Materials (AWSM) and the H2 from the Next-generation of Electrolyzers of Water (H2NEW) consortia were formed and supported by the Department of Energy (DOE) EERE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO). HydroGEN (https://www.energy.gov/eere/h2awsm/) consortium, established in 2016, is an Energy Materials Network (EMN) that aims to accelerate the materials R&D of low technology readiness level (TRL) advanced water splitting (AWS) technologies. The consortium comprises five core national laboratories and focuses on four early-stage AWS pathways: alkaline exchange membrane (AEM) electrolysis, proton conducting solid oxide electrolysis (p-SOEC), photoelectrochemical, and thermochemical water splitting. Liquid alkaline and PEM electrolyzers are already commercial and significant advancements in oxygen conducting solid oxide electrolysis cells (o-SOECs) have been realized. Yet, these systems are still too expensive and not sufficiently durable for wide-scale commercialization. To enable high-volume manufacturing of affordable, durable, efficient electrolyzers, H2NEW (https://h2new.energy.gov/), another multi-lab consortium, was established in 2020. This comprehensive, concerted effort is focused on overcoming barriers related to components and materials integration and scale-up to achieve performance, durability, with an initial focus to achieve $2/kg H2 by 2026.

AEM↗
DOE OSTI2021

National and Regional Initiatives to Promote Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Through State Energy Offices

The National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) worked with the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Office (WIP) over a ten year period to provide technical assistance, research and analyses, and enhanced coordination between DOE and the State and Territory Energy Offices. Over the life of the agreement, NASEO worked with WIP and the states to provide statewide strategic energy plan analyses and recommendations, including customized technical assistance to the states; peer to peer financing assistance via NASEO’s Financing Committee and supporting activities; training on core energy policies and programs, including dialogues and resources to support energy-air coordination, a training for new State Energy Office Directors, peer to peer exchange via a rural energy taskforce, and support to states to enhance buildings efficiency, home energy labeling, and technology deployment opportunities; support for State Energy Program metrics; and regional coordination via regional coordinators and peer exchange opportunities both in-person and online. Over the life of the project, the position and role of State Energy Offices within state government has changed, with now 80 percent of State Energy Office Directors serving as their Governor’s energy advisor, or reporting directly to their Governor’s energy advisor. This shift in stature has made it ever more crucial for State Energy Offices to receive timely and relevant technical assistance across a range of energy issue areas. NASEO, in collaboration with WIP, was able to deliver this technical assistance, and energy efficiency and renewable energy deployment has accelerated across the country. The State Energy Office Directors and their staff continue to engage in NASEO’s Committees – many of which were supported through this agreement – and have provided formal and informal feedback on the value of the programs supported through this award (e.g., reporting via survey increased understanding of their roles and technical assistance offerings provided by WIP and NASEO following the New Director Trainings). Moreover, resources developed through this award (e.g., Comprehensive State Energy Planning Guidelines, State Energy Loan Fund Database, Rural Data Resources for State Energy Planning and Programs, The Value of Adding home Energy Score to Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs, etc.) have been cited by states as instrumental to their understanding of specific energy issue areas and in many cases led directly to enhanced program design within a state (e.g. Iowa citing their review of NASEO’s Comprehensive State Energy Planning Guidelines as a necessary first step in their planning process, later following may of the steps outlined in the guidelines). The priorities of the states and federal government have evolved over the last decade, with an increasing focus on climate mitigation and adaptation, equity impacts and considerations, energy security and resilience, and enhanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technology deployment, but the roots of these new priorities are based in the state and federal policies and programs, and research and analyses, that were supported in part through this award and other complementary initiatives. NASEO looks forward to continuing to support the states, and collaborate and coordinate with DOE, as we build on this important foundation in the years ahead.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Mark-18A Target Material Recovery Program: Initial Hot Startup

The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) has been tasked by the National Nuclear Security Administration to recover highly valued isotopes from irradiated Mark-18A (Mk-18A) targets. The Savannah River Site (SRS) has sixty-five Mk-18A targets available for the recovery of the high valued materials. The Mk-18A targets were manufactured with Pu-242 then irradiated under high neutron flux in K-Reactor at the SRS from 1968 to 1978. The sixty-five Mk-18A targets are currently stored in the SRS L-Area Basin and will be removed one at a time and individually transported to SRNL. Upon receipt at SRNL, the Mk-18A target material will be removed from the confinement, dissolved, chemically separated, and calcined to a stable oxide. The flowsheet is designed to recover the plutonium as well as the trivalent actinides. The original targets were manufactured with varying quantities of Pu-242, ranging from 5.2 grams to 121.5 grams. Taking a graded approach to process start up, the lowest loaded target (FT-80-03) was selected as the first target to be received and processed at SRNL. As operational experience and knowledge is gained from processing targets, higher loaded targets will be selected for processing to increase the quantities of valuable isotopes recovered. Due to dose concerns, the receipt and processing of the Mk-18A targets is performed in the SRNL Shielded Cells Facility. The targets are stored in a double J-can confinement in the L-Area Basin. A specially designed cask was procured for transport of the targets from L-Area to SRNL. Once received at SRNL, the targets are loaded into the back of Cell 7 and resized as they enter the cell. The resized targets (1/4 length) are then processed one at a time through the following processes: caustic dissolution and filtration, acidic dissolution and filtration, elutable Reillex anion exchange, diglycolamide (DGA) resin extraction, and DGA calcination. This processing results in two product streams. The first is an aqueous plutonium solution which is removed from the shielded cells and taken to a glovebox for further purification and conversion to an oxide. The second is a calcined oxide product containing the Am and Cm as well as other lanthanide fission products which is removed from the shielded cells using a bagless transfer system. Both materials are packaged for shipment to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). This paper will discuss the operating experience, lessons learned, and results from initial process hot startup.

Armstrong, Christopher [Savannah River National La↗
DOE OSTI2023

Opportunities for green hydrogen production with land-based wind in the United States

Hydrogen (H 2 ) is an efficient energy carrier and storage mechanism that can supply both stationary and transport energy demand. Rapidly declining renewable energy generation costs; technology innovations in wind, solar, battery storage, and electrolysis; and a global push for more sustainable and secure energy have driven increased interest in green H 2 production. In this study, we develop an H 2 scenario analysis tool to assist in rapid, high-resolution insights into future, green H 2 pathways to achieve policy goals and market competitiveness. Using this tool, we estimate H 2 production and costs for U.S., off-grid scenarios given varying policy and cost scenarios from 2025–2035. Results indicate that achieving economically competitive green H 2 production (below $\$$2/kg) is possible in 2030 with no policy incentives (one site achieves this target), while increasing policy support to include wind and green H 2 production tax credits enables widespread economic viability sooner, with sub-$\$$2/kg LCOH targets achieved by 2025 and 51.7% of sites achieving this target by 2035. Maximizing policy support through prevailing wage and apprenticeship credit multipliers enable widespread economic viability, including sub-$\$$2/kg of green H 2 by 2025 and even negative pricing by 2035. Regions with lowest LCOH values correspond to high wind resource areas and capacity factors. Achieving decarbonization goals with green H 2 depends on technology cost reductions and policy support, with a maximum average LCOH reduction of $\$$23.10 between no and maximum policy support scenarios, and a maximum average LCOH reduction of $\$$25.86 between current, conservative technology costs and 2035 projected technology cost assumptions.

08 HYDROGEN↗