Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “GREET development”

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.

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2013

Project Profile: Hydrogen Fuel Cell Mobile Lighting Tower (HFCML)

NASA is committed to finding innovative solutions that improve the operational performance of ground support equipment while providing environment and cost benefits, as well. Through the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Mobile Lighting Tower (HFCML) project, NASA gained operational exposure to a novel application of high efficiency technologies. Traditionally, outdoor lighting and auxiliary power at security gates, launch viewing sites, fallback areas, outage support, and special events is provided by diesel generators with metal halide lights. Diesel generators inherently contribute to C02, NOx, particulate emissions, and are very noisy. In 2010, engineers from NASA's Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation Principal Center (TEERM) introduced KSC operations to a novel technology for outdoor lighting needs. Developed by a team led by Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), the technology pairs a 5kW hydrogen fuel cell with robust high efficiency plasma lights in a towable trailer. Increased efficiency, in both the fuel cell power source and lighting load, yields longer run times between fueling operations while providing greater auxiliary power. Because of the unit's quiet operation and no exhaust fumes, it is capable of being used indoors and in emergency situations, and meets the needs of all other operational roles for metal halide/diesel generators. The only discharge is some water and warm air. Environmental benefits include elimination of diesel particulate emissions and estimated 73% greenhouse gas emissions savings when the hydrogen source is natural gas (per GREET model). As the technology matures the costs could become competitive for the fuel cell units which are approximately 5 times diesel units. Initial operational . concerns included the hydrogen storage tanks and valves, lightning safety/grounding, and required operating and refueling procedures. TEERM facilitated technical information exchange (design drawings, technical standards, and operations manuals) necessary for KSC hydrogen system experts to approve use of the HFCML unit, including initiating the environmental checklist (i.e. exterior lighting waiver due to sea turtles), and development of operations and maintenance instructions. TEERM worked with SNL to establish a bailment agreement for KSC to utilize a Beta unit as part of normal Center Operations for a period of twelve months.

McLaughlin, Russell↗
NASA NTRS2020

The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017

Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. Atmospheric emissions and concentrations of CH4 continue to increase, making CH4 the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing, after carbon dioxide (CO2). The relative importance of CH4 compared to CO2 depends on its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger warming potential, and variations in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the atmospheric growth rate arise from the variety of geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the destruction of CH4 by short-lived hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to synthesize and stimulate new research aimed at improving and regularly updating the global methane budget. Following Saunois et al. (2016), we present here the second version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal methane budget, integrating results of top-down studies (atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modelling framework) and bottom-up estimates (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). For the 2008–2017 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (a top-down approach) to be 576 Tg CH4/yr (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 Tg CH4/yr or ∼ 60 % is attributed to anthropogenic sources, that is emissions caused by direct human activity (i.e. anthropogenic emissions; range 336–376 Tg CH4/yr or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is 29 Tg CH4/yr larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009), and 24 Tg CH4/yr larger than the one reported in the previous budget for 2003–2012 (Saunois et al., 2016). Since 2012, global CH4 emissions have been tracking the warmest scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bottom-up methods suggest almost 30 % larger global emissions (737 Tg CH4/yr, range 594–881) than top-down inversion methods. Indeed, bottom-up estimates for natural sources such as natural wetlands, other inland water systems, and geological sources are higher than top-down estimates. The atmospheric constraints on the top-down budget suggest that at least some of these bottom-up emissions are overestimated. The latitudinal distribution of atmospheric observation-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical emissions (∼ 65 % of the global budget, < 30° N) compared to mid-latitudes (∼ 30 %, 30–60° N) and high northern latitudes (∼ 4 %, 60–90° N). The most important source of uncertainty in the methane budget is attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and other inland waters. Some of our global source estimates are smaller than those in previously published budgets (Saunois et al., 2016; Kirschke et al., 2013). In particular wetland emissions are about 35 Tg CH4/yr lower due to improved partition wetlands and other inland waters. Emissions from geological sources and wild animals are also found to be smaller by 7 Tg CH4/yr by 8 Tg CH4/yr, respectively. However, the overall discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates has been reduced by only 5 % compared to Saunois et al. (2016), due to a higher estimate of emissions from inland waters, highlighting the need for more detailed research on emissions factors. Priorities for improving the methane budget include (i) a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting methane based on a robust classification of different types of emitting habitats; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of methane observations at local scales (e.g., FLUXNET-CH4 measurements) and urban-scale monitoring to constrain bottom-up land surface models, and at regional scales (surface networks and satellites) to constrain atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) development of a 3D variational inversion system using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane to improve source partitioning.

methane budget↗
NASA NTRS2016

The Global Methane Budget 2000-2012

The global methane (CH4) budget is becoming an increasingly important component for managing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. This relevance, due to a shorter atmospheric lifetime and a stronger warming potential than carbon dioxide, is challenged by the still unexplained changes of atmospheric CH4 over the past decade. Emissions and concentrations of CH4 are continuing to increase, making CH4 the second most important human-induced greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. Two major difficulties in reducing uncertainties come from the large variety of diffusive CH4 sources that overlap geographically, and from the destruction of CH4 by the very short-lived hydroxyl radical (OH). To address these difficulties, we have established a consortium of multi-disciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to synthesize and stimulate research on the methane cycle, and producing regular (approximately biennial) updates of the global methane budget. This consortium includes atmospheric physicists and chemists, biogeochemists of surface and marine emissions, and socio-economists who study anthropogenic emissions. Following Kirschke et al. (2013), we propose here the first version of a living review paper that integrates results of top-down studies (exploiting atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modeling framework) and bottom-up models, inventories and data-driven approaches (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, and inventories for anthropogenic emissions, data-driven extrapolations).For the 2003-2012 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by top-down inversions at 558 TgCH4 yr(exp -1), range 540-568. About 60 of global emissions are anthropogenic (range 50-65%). Since 2010, the bottom-up global emission inventories have been closer to methane emissions in the most carbon-intensive Representative Concentrations Pathway (RCP8.5) and higher than all other RCP scenarios. Bottom-up approaches suggest larger global emissions (736 TgCH4 yr(exp -1), range 596-884) mostly because of larger natural emissions from individual sources such as inland waters, natural wetlands and geological sources. Considering the atmospheric constraints on the top-down budget, it is likely that some of the individual emissions reported by the bottom-up approaches are overestimated, leading to too large global emissions. Latitudinal data from top-down emissions indicate a predominance of tropical emissions (approximately 64% of the global budget, less than 30deg N) as compared to mid (approximately 32%, 30-60deg N) and high northern latitudes (approximately 4%, 60-90deg N). Top-down inversions consistently infer lower emissions in China (approximately 58 TgCH4 yr(exp -1), range 51-72, minus14% ) and higher emissions in Africa (86 TgCH4 yr(exp -1), range 73-108, plus 19% ) than bottom-up values used as prior estimates. Overall, uncertainties for anthropogenic emissions appear smaller than those from natural sources, and the uncertainties on source categories appear larger for top-down inversions than for bottom-up inventories and models. The most important source of uncertainty on the methane budget is attributable to emissions from wetland and other inland waters. We show that the wetland extent could contribute 30-40% on the estimated range for wetland emissions. Other priorities for improving the methane budget include the following: (i) the development of process-based models for inland-water emissions, (ii) the intensification of methane observations at local scale (flux measurements) to constrain bottom-up land surface models, and at regional scale (surface networks and satellites) to constrain top-down inversions, (iii) improvements in the estimation of atmospheric loss by OH, and (iv) improvements of the transport models integrated in top-down inversions. The data presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (http://doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/GLOBAL_ METHANE_BUDGET_2016_V1.1) and the Global Carbon Project.

Saunois, Marielle↗
NASA NTRS2017

NASA Human Spaceflight Scenarios - Do All Our Models Still Say No?

Historically, NASA human spaceflight planning has included healthy doses of life cycle cost analysis. Planners put projects and their cost estimates in a budget context. Estimated costs became expected budgets. Regardless, real budgets rarely matched expectations. So plans would come and go as NASA canceled projects. New projects would arise and the cycle would begin again. Repeatedly, NASA schedule and performance ambitions come up against costs growing at double-digit rates while budgets barely rise a couple of percent a year. Significant skepticism greets proposed NASA programs at birth, as cost estimates for new projects are traditionally very high, and worse, far off the mark for those carried forward. In this environment the current "capability driven framework" for NASA human spaceflight evolved, where long term life cycle cost analysis are even viewed as possibly counter-productive. Here, a space exploration project, for example the Space Launch System, focuses on immediate goals. A life cycle is that of a project, not a program, and for only that span of time to a near term milestone like a first test launch. Unfortunately, attempting to avoid some pitfalls in long-term life cycle cost analysis breeds others. Government audits have noted that limiting the scope of cost analysis "does not provide the transparency necessary to assess long-term affordability" making it difficult to understand if NASA "is progressing in a cost-effective and affordable manner." Even in this short-term framework, NASA realizes the importance of long-term considerations, that it must "maximize the efficiency and sustainability of the Exploration Systems development programs", that this is "critical to free resources for re-investment...such as other required deep space exploration capabilities." Assuming the value of long-term life cycle cost analysis, where due diligence meets reconnaissance, and accepting past shortcomings, the work here approaches life cycle cost analysis for human spaceflight differently. 1) If costs have traditionally been so high that adding them up is discouraging, are there any new facts on the ground offering paths to significantly lower costs? 2) If NASA's spaceflight budget and process is an over-arching constraint, with its planning limitations favoring short-term outlooks, is there a way to step outside the budget box? 3) If life cycle answers have historically been too uncertain to be useful, is there a process where stakeholders gain valuable insights merely from emphasizing a common understanding around questions? We analyze the potential life cycle cost of assorted NASA human spaceflight architectures - an architecture as a sum of individual systems, working together. With the prior questions of high costs, limited budgets and uncertainties in mind, public private partnerships are central in these architectures. The cost data for current commercial public private partnerships is encouraging, as are cost estimates for future partnership approaches beyond low Earth orbit. Private capital, directly or indirectly, an ingredient of public private partnerships, may be a significant factor in finding a path around the limits of the NASA spaceflight budget. Also, understanding and reviewing the pros, cons and uncertainties of assorted architectures can assist in developing a common understanding around key questions as important if not more so than the numbers and answers. Lastly, a scenario planning technique is briefly explored that can mature a common understanding about the agencies situation at hand and how diverse stakeholders can go forward together. Scenario planning, rather than focusing on answers, places emphasis on stakeholders developing a common understanding about the future. Putting aside costs, this is especially true of questions about sustainability and growth, results, benefits and expectations. While efficiency exercises or analysis look to reduce resources in one place to apply them elsewhere, moving around slices in a pie, scenario planning can get at the heart of the matter, growing the pie, transforming it, and making the pieces relevant. Especially important is the question of sustainability for different scenarios in the broad sense of the word - not just the narrow ability to survive or continue, but also the ability to adapt, prosper and grow.

space systems life cycle costs↗
NASA NTRS1995

To Boldly Go. America's Next Era in Space: New Frontiers in Climate Research

Dr. France Cordova, NASA's Chief Scientist, chaired this, the fourth seminar in the NASA Administrator's Seminar Series. She introduced NASA Administrator, Daniel S. Goldin, who greeted the attendees, and in his opening remarks said that human beings have a need to understand the what and why of the forces of nature and of people, and the stresses on the planet Earth. The first speaker, Dr. Ellen Mosley-Thompson of Ohio State University discussed the many things that scientists have learned from ice cores obtained in Peru and the Antarctic. The next speaker, Dr. Michael McElroy of Harvard University, is active in environmental research. He noted that insurance companies need to know more about the physics and chemistry of weather in order to avoid bankruptcy; that the greenhouse effect, which is good because it reflects heat, is being changed, and we don't know the rules. In the discussion that followed, Goldin asked if the present technology for measuring circulation of air and water and contents of the atmosphere is worth the cost. Drs. McElroy and Mosley-Thompson noted that the historic record in an ice core is endangered by ice melts; that in the last 10 years we've learned that tropics change; that the water vapor in the tropics is critical right now; that clouds absorb short-wave radiation; and that there is a need to improve measurements of atmospheric contents, the development of models, and the understanding of basic physics. We also need to understand parameters for detecting climate change, water, water temperature, and be able to provide fundamental information. Additional information is included in the original extended abstract.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2018

A New Global Anthropogenic SO2 Emission Inventory for the Last Decade: A Mosaic of Satellite-Derived and Bottom-Up Emissions

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) measurements from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) satellite sensor have been used to detect emissions from large point sources. Emissions from over 400 sources have been quantified individually based on OMI observations, accounting for about a half of total reported anthropogenic SO2 emissions. Here we report a newly developed emission inventory, OMI-HTAP, by combining these OMI-based emission estimates and the conventional bottom-up inventory, HTAP, for smaller sources that OMI is not able to detect. OMI-HTAP includes emissions from OMI-detected sources that are not captured in previous leading bottom-up inventories, enabling more accurate emission estimates for regions with such missing sources. In addition, our approach offers the possibility of rapid updates to emissions from large point sources that can be detected by satellites. Our methodology applied to OMI-HTAP can also be used to merge improved satellite-derived estimates with other multi-year bottom-up inventories, which may further improve the accuracy of the emission trends. OMI-HTAP SO2 emissions estimates for Persian Gulf, Mexico, and Russia are 59%, 65%, and 56% larger than HTAP estimates, respectively, in year 2010. We have evaluated the OMI-HTAP inventory by performing simulations with the Goddard Earth Observing System version 5 (GEOS-5) model. The GEOS-5 simulated SO2 concentrations driven by both HTAP and OMI-HTAP were compared against in situ measurements. We focus for the validation on year 2010 for which HTAP is most valid and for which a relatively large number of in situ measurements are available. Results show that the OMI-HTAP inventory improves the agreement between the model and observations, in particular over the US, with the normalized mean bias decreasing from 0.41 (HTAP) to -0.03 (OMI-HTAP) for year 2010. Simulations with the OMI-HTAP inventory capture the worldwide major trends of large anthropogenic SO2 emissions that are observed with OMI. Correlation coefficients of the observed and modelled surface SO2 in 2014 increase from 0.16 (HTAP) to 0.59 (OMI-HTAP) and the normalized mean bias dropped from 0.29 (HTAP) to 0.05 (OMI-HTAP), when we updated 2010 HTAP emissions with 2014 OMI-HTAP emissions in the model.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)↗