Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Life Cycle Cost”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Review of Life Cycle Cost Analysis Tools

Life cycle costing (LCC) is a vital aspect of decision-making in building retrofitting. It allows stakeholders to thoroughly assess all expenses involved throughout the lifespan of these retrofits, covering initial costs; ongoing operation, maintenance, and repair costs; and disposal costs of the system. The Federal Energy Management Program of the US Department of Energy has established clear guidelines for conducting LCC analysis, particularly for investments aimed at energy and water conservation, as well as renewable energy projects. These guidelines are detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 436, Subpart A, which outlines the methodology and procedure for LCC analysis (Department of Energy 1990). The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed the NIST Handbook 135 (Joshua Kneifel 2022) to standardize the process of LCC analysis within the building industry. Whereas the handbook is tailored to the needs of federal agencies, its principles and methodologies can be valuable for other organizations and industries interested in conducting life cycle costing analyses for their building projects.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Reliability-Informed Life Cycle Warranty Cost and Life Cycle Analysis of Newly Manufactured and Remanufactured Units

Standard life cycle techniques such as life cycle warranty cost (LCWC) analysis and life cycle analysis (LCA) are used to respectively quantify the relative economical and environmental advantages of remanufactured goods while simultaneously identifying avenues for improvement. In this paper, we contribute to the literature on life cycle studies by incorporating reliability into LCWC analysis and LCA with the goal of improving long-term/multiple life cycle decision making. We develop a branched power-law model to incorporate the physical degradation mechanisms leading to reduced reuse rates of system parts over multiple life cycles. We then follow a standard LCA protocol to quantify the difference between a new unit and its remanufactured version in terms of environmental impact items such as abiotic depletion potential, global warming potential, and energy consumption. We then devise four practical warranty policies that vary in the choice of replacement and/or provision for extended warranty. All possible replacement scenarios for multiple life cycles are explored for each policy and a mathematically rigorous framework is provided, where the reliability information is used to calculate probabilistic LCWC and life cycle impact items. This reliability-informed LCWC analysis and LCA framework enables design engineers to compare design options and warranty policies by quantifying both economical and environmental impacts to aid in decision making. Although the framework is presented in a general form applicable to any engineered system, we demonstrate the utility of this framework by using a case study of an infinitely variable transmission used in agricultural equipment.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2013

Hanford River Protection Project Life cycle Cost Modeling Tool to Enhance Mission Planning - 13396

The Life cycle Cost Model (LCM) Tool is an overall systems model that incorporates budget, and schedule impacts for the entire life cycle of the River Protection Project (RPP) mission, and is replacing the Hanford Tank Waste Operations Simulator (HTWOS) model as the foundation of the RPP system planning process. Currently, the DOE frequently requests HTWOS simulations of alternative technical and programmatic strategies for completing the RPP mission. Analysis of technical and programmatic changes can be performed with HTWOS; however, life cycle costs and schedules were previously generated by manual transfer of time-based data from HTWOS to Primavera P6. The LCM Tool automates the preparation of life cycle costs and schedules and is needed to provide timely turnaround capability for RPP mission alternative analyses. LCM is the simulation component of the LCM Tool. The simulation component is a replacement of the HTWOS model with new capability to support life cycle cost modeling. It is currently deployed in G22, but has been designed to work in any full object-oriented language with an extensive feature set focused on networking and cross-platform compatibility. The LCM retains existing HTWOS functionality needed to support system planning and alternatives studies going forward. In addition, it incorporates new functionality, coding improvements that streamline programming and model maintenance, and capability to input/export data to/from the LCM using the LCM Database (LCMDB). The LCM Cost/Schedule (LCMCS) contains cost and schedule data and logic. The LCMCS is used to generate life cycle costs and schedules for waste retrieval and processing scenarios. It uses time-based output data from the LCM to produce the logic ties in Primavera P6 necessary for shifting activities. The LCM Tool is evolving to address the needs of decision makers who want to understand the broad spectrum of risks facing complex organizations like DOE-RPP to understand how near-term programmatic decisions affect life cycle costs and commitments. (authors)

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Framework for Water Efficiency Measures

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Framework for Water Efficiency Measures: Guidance Designed for Federal Agencies (hereafter referred to as “this report”) provides a technical framework for federal agencies to conduct a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for water efficiency projects in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 8253. This report leverages insights from the 2023 report, PNNL-34006, Water and Wastewater Annual Price Escalation Rates for Selected Cities Across the United States: 2023 Edition (Unger et al. 2023). The primary objective of this report is to provide a framework to assist federal agencies with evaluating the full economic impact of water efficiency projects by assessing both initial investments and long-term operational benefits. An LCCA can provide a comprehensive view of all costs associated with a water efficiency project, including initial investment, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M), and eventual disposal or replacement, ensuring the most cost-effective solution is selected. The LCCA methodology outlined in this report enables users to compare base case scenarios with potential alternatives using a standardized present value approach. It incorporates key cost components such as energy, water and wastewater, installation, O&M, and equipment replacement. Additionally, the framework introduces relevant evaluation metrics, such as the net savings and the savings-to-investment ratio, to ensure that water efficiency measures are economically justified over the lifespan of the project. To support practical application, this report also describes various water efficiency strategies that may be analyzed using an LCCA, including plumbing retrofits, irrigation upgrades, alternative water use, and cooling system improvements. By applying this framework, federal agencies can ensure compliance with regulatory mandates while maximizing the return on investment and contributing to resilient water management practices. The information provided in this report is aligned with the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) life-cycle cost (LCC) methodology, as conveyed in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 135 (Kneifel and Webb 2022). This report is intended to provide relatively high-level guidance, acting as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, that resource.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Simplified Method to Evaluate Energy Life Cycle Cost Effectiveness for Electron Ion Collider Infrastructure Design

The new DOE Order 436.1A approved on April 25 th provides instructions to incorporate principles of sustainability early in the project planning and design process. Integral to the principles of sustainability is life cycle cost effectiveness Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Analysis is vital to the sustainable energy efficient design and construction of the Electron Ion Collider (EIC). Reducing energy consumption has a direct impact on reducing life cycle operating costs with benefits to the environment. The early stages of the project are the most influential where design decisions and so life-cycle considerations during this stage can result in significant impacts to the energy footprint of the design. For example, when comparing between various options, it is necessary to compare the energy savings in $\frac{US$}{kWh}$ to the capital cost in US$. And although uncertain by nature, it is important to factor in the expected inflation and discount of future spendings to compare with the cost of immediate capital investment. This tech note presents a tool that engineers can readily use to analyze energy operating costs using an incremental life cycle cost method when comparing different design alternative.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Comparison of ammonia with methanol, liquefied natural gas and conventional marine transportation fuels through life cycle cost and emissions analysis

This work evaluates ammonia as a potential marine fuel for a SUEZMAX tanker and compares it with methanol, liquefied natural gas, and conventional fuel oils. The motivation arises from the need to identify low-emission, cost-competitive fuel options that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping. The central hypothesis is that ammonia produced from renewable energy sources can achieve lower well-to-wake greenhouse gas emissions with varying life cycle costs based on the region. Life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis were performed for a thirty-year vessel lifetime on two representative trade routes: from Saudi Arabia to Japan and from Saudi Arabia to the Netherlands. Four ammonia production pathways were assessed: natural gas, natural gas with carbon capture, natural gas pyrolysis, and renewable electricity–based synthesis. Results show that wind-based ammonia produced in Saudi Arabia achieved the lowest life cycle well-to-wake greenhouse gas emissions, between 0.58 and 0.64 million metric tons, among all fuels when using regional grid process electricity. With renewable process electricity, ammonia produced from natural gas pyrolysis in Saudi Arabia showed comparable emissions of 0.37 to 0.44 million metric tons with wind-based ammonia of 0.37 to 0.43 million metric tons. Liquefied natural gas exhibited the lowest life cycle cost, between 402 and 412 million United States dollars, and the only negative carbon abatement cost, ranging from −277 to –322 United States dollars per metric ton of greenhouse gas, compared with high sulfur fuel oil. The findings indicate that renewable ammonia offers a promising long-term pathway for reducing shipping emissions, while liquefied natural gas remains the most cost-effective option in the near term.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2012

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Life Cycle Cost Assessment, Final Technical Report, 30 May 2012

The Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Life Cycle Cost Assessment (OLCCA) is a study performed by members of the Lockheed Martin (LM) OTEC Team under funding from the Department of Energy (DOE), Award No. DE-EE0002663, dated 01/01/2010. OLCCA objectives are to estimate procurement, operations and maintenance, and overhaul costs for two types of OTEC plants: -Plants moored to the sea floor where the electricity produced by the OTEC plant is directly connected to the grid ashore via a marine power cable (Grid Connected OTEC plants) -Open-ocean grazing OTEC plant-ships producing an energy carrier that is transported to designated ports (Energy Carrier OTEC plants) Costs are developed using the concept of levelized cost of energy established by DOE for use in comparing electricity costs from various generating systems. One area of system costs that had not been developed in detail prior to this analysis was the operations and sustainment (O&S) cost for both types of OTEC plants. Procurement costs, generally referred to as capital expense and O&S costs (operations and maintenance (O&M) costs plus overhaul and replacement costs), are assessed over the 30 year operational life of the plants and an annual annuity calculated to achieve a levelized cost (constant across entire plant life). Dividing this levelized cost by the average annual energy production results in a levelized cost of electricity, or LCOE, for the OTEC plants. Technical and production efficiency enhancements that could result in a lower value of the OTEC LCOE were also explored. The thermal OTEC resource for Oahu, Hawaii and projected build out plan were developed. The estimate of the OTEC resource and LCOE values for the planned OTEC systems enable this information to be displayed as energy supplied versus levelized cost of the supplied energy; this curve is referred to as an Energy Supply Curve. The Oahu Energy Supply Curve represents initial OTEC deployment starting in 2018 and demonstrates the predicted economies of scale as technology and efficiency improvements are realized and larger more economical plants deployed. Utilizing global high resolution OTEC resource assessment from the Ocean Thermal Extractable Energy Visualization (OTEEV) project (an independent DOE project), Global Energy Supply Curves were generated for Grid Connected and Energy Carrier OTEC plants deployed in 2045 when the predicted technology and efficiencies improvements are fully realized. The Global Energy Supply Curves present the LCOE versus capacity in ascending order with the richest, lowest cost resource locations being harvested first. These curves demonstrate the vast ocean thermal resource and potential OTEC capacity that can be harvested with little change in LCOE.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2025

NE-COST plug-in: Expanding ACCERT's Capabilities for Life-Cycle Cost Modeling

The Algorithm for the Capital Cost Estimation of Reactor Technologies (ACCERT) is a structured methodology and software tool designed to simplify and standardize cost estimation for nuclear reactor technologies [1]. By utilizing a relational database structure and modular cost estimation algorithms, ACCERT delivers a robust, flexible, and scalable framework for evaluating costs across various reactor types and configurations [2]. The recent integration of the NE-COST plugin further expands ACCERT’s scope by introducing detailed life-cycle cost modeling and probabilistic analysis of uncertainties. This addition enables users to evaluate costs across front-end processes such as uranium enrichment and fabrication, as well as back-end activities including waste disposal and geologic storage. Through Monte Carlo statistical cost simulations, the plugin provides probabilistic insights into cost ranges, offering critical decision-making support for stakeholders including reactor developers, policymakers, and researchers.

Zhou, Jia↗
DOE OSTI2025

Greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies that maximize portfolio-wide life cycle cost reduction, resilience, and environmental justice benefits

While strategies to achieve net-zero emissions at an individual site are well understood, new analysis methods are required for organizations seeking to achieve net-zero across multiple facilities, each with concurrent priority goals. At a portfolio level, distinct locations present varied challenges that cannot be addressed through singular solutions, and competing goals can take precedence with the assumption that net-zero emissions strategies deter from energy resilience and cost savings, therefore negatively impacting nearby communities. This study tests these assumptions by analyzing 16 diverse sites (varying in size, climate, and energy use) to identify strategies that reduce emissions and assess the impact these strategies have on life cycle costs, resilience, and communities with environmental justice concerns. Methods were developed to approximate missing information essential to net-zero evaluation. Established methods were augmented to evaluate life cycle costs, resilience, and environmental justice impacts across a set of strategies and accommodate the multi-criteria analyses. Potential benefits from identified strategies were quantified using site characteristics and a set of corresponding metrics. The net-zero analysis found that 11 sites could use on-site strategies to eliminate all but 2% of emissions generated. The remaining emissions can be offset, for instance through sequestration, executed at the portfolio scale. On-site carbon-free energy was found to reduce 51% of emissions across all sites; efficiency reduced 19% of emissions; sequestration 16%; procured carbon-free energy 15%; fuel switching 1.6%; and fleet electrification 1.3%. Building electrification, however, increased emissions by 4.4%. Different strategies also provide cost, resilience, and/or environmental justice benefits—the degree to which varies with individual site conditions. The findings indicate an advantage to considering the strategies as a comprehensive set, which leads to co-benefits, both in the ability to achieve net-zero goals and in advancing other goals. The results present the case for comprehensive advanced planning at the portfolio level to prioritize investments that will balance the minimization of emissions and life cycle cost with the maximization of resilience and environmental justice benefits. The novel methods for evaluation and integration, valuation of benefits, and consideration at the portfolio scale allow organizations to select investments that simultaneously address multiple key priorities.

Net-Zero Emissions↗
DOE OSTI2011

Material and energy recovery in integrated waste management systems: A life-cycle costing approach

Highlights: > The study aims at assessing economic performance of alternative scenarios of MSW. > The approach is the life-cycle costing (LCC). > Waste technologies must be considered as complementary into an integrated strategy. - Abstract: A critical assumption of studies assessing comparatively waste management options concerns the constant average cost for selective collection regardless the source separation level (SSL) reached, and the neglect of the mass constraint. The present study compares alternative waste management scenarios through the development of a desktop model that tries to remove the above assumption. Several alternative scenarios based on different combinations of energy and materials recovery are applied to two imaginary areas modelled in order to represent a typical Northern Italian setting. External costs and benefits implied by scenarios are also considered. Scenarios are compared on the base of the full cost for treating the total waste generated in the area. The model investigates the factors that influence the relative convenience of alternative scenarios.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Poles Subjected to Wind, Surges, and Waves

Prestressed concrete (PC) poles are becoming popular choices to support coastal power transmission systems. However, the existing literature does not offer a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of PC poles in terms of long-term vulnerabilities and the direct and indirect costs. This is due to (1) lack of fragility models for PC poles and (2) lack of probabilistic wind, storm surge, and wave models in coastal settings. In this study, we address these gaps through a series of Monte Carlo simulations to estimate fragility of PC poles as a function of age and hazard (wind, surges, and waves) intensity, and the development of a probabilistic hazard model based on 10,000 years of synthetic tropical cyclone data. The probabilistic hazard model is used in conjunction with high-resolution hydrodynamic models to generate realizations of coastal wind, storm surges, and waves for the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts. A comprehensive life cycle cost analysis for a service life of 70 years considering direct and indirect losses is conducted to compare the performance of a transmission line located in Pascagoula, Mississippi, when wood poles are replaced by PC poles. Results showed that aging has a minor effect on the reliability of PC poles, highlighting the advantages of replacing wood poles with PC poles, especially in coastal areas. In addition, PC poles are significantly more cost-effective compared with wood poles over their life cycle, leading to an estimated saving of $11.55 million (68.17% reduction). The results of this study provide key insight to inform decision-making processes to keep the coastal power grids resilient and cost-effective against future storm hazards.

natural disasters↗
DOE OSTI2020

Life-Cycle Cost and Optimization of PV Systems Based on Power Duration Curve with Variable Performance Ratio and Availability

A new derivation of Power Duration Curve is presented and applied to analysis of photovoltaic system life cycle cost. The effect of non-unity Performance Ratio and non-unity Availability on the power duration curve are illustrated. The effect of these two key performance indicators on calculation of life cycle cost and PV system design optimization (optimal DC/AC ratio) are illustrated as example applications of the method.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Net-zero energy building design and life-cycle cost analysis with air-source variable refrigerant flow and distributed photovoltaic systems

Net-zero energy building (NZEB) design has been gaining widespread acceptance as a major driver to reach feasible long-term goals of energy reductions in a building sector for the coming decades. Accordingly, net-zero energy targets for commercial buildings have been specified by federal and/or local government agencies in U.S. Although moving toward NZEB goals has technically feasible long-term advantages, economic issues are one of primarily concerns by building owners and designers for the application of advanced building technologies in NZEB design of their retrofit or new building construction. However, the lack of life cycle cost (LCC) data has still hindered reliable understanding of adopting NZEB design by building owners in a cost-effective manner. In response to this gap, this study conducts life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) of NZEB design with an energy-efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system and a solar power generation system. Here, to enable NZEB design, an air-source VRF heat pump (HP) type system is considered for energy-efficient HVAC equipment in an office building model with a grid-tied photovoltaic (PV) system. Results reveal that the LCC of NZEBs varies primarily due to a combined effect of annual site EUIs, on-site power generation, and cost-items of each location in U.S. climates. Some hot and mild climate zones in the U.S. represent that LCC values of NZEBs are considerably lower. In contrast, some other cold zones result in unattractive LCC values for NZEBs, caused by a combined effect of relatively lower potential of on-site PV electricity generation and city cost indices. Yet, with subsidized financing by the federal government for PV installation costs, LCC values of NZEBs become significantly attractive in most climate locations.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2015

Comparing Green and Grey Infrastructure Using Life Cycle Cost and Environmental Impact: A Rain Garden Case Study in Cincinnati, OH

Abstract Green infrastructure ( GI ) is quickly gaining ground as a less costly, greener alternative to traditional methods of stormwater management. One popular form of GI is the use of rain gardens to capture and treat stormwater. We used life cycle assessment ( LCA ) to compare environmental impacts of residential rain gardens constructed in the Shepherd's Creek watershed of Cincinnati, Ohio to those from a typical detain and treat system. LCA is an internationally standardized framework for analyzing the potential environmental performance of a product or service by including all stages in its life cycle, including material extraction, manufacturing, use, and disposal. Complementary to the life cycle environmental impact assessment, the life cycle costing approach was adopted to compare the equivalent annual costs of each of these systems. These analyses were supplemented by modeling alternative scenarios to capture the variability in implementing a GI strategy. Our LCA models suggest rain garden costs and impacts are determined by labor requirement; the traditional alternative's impacts are determined largely by the efficiency of wastewater treatment, while costs are determined by the expense of tunnel construction. Gardens were found to be the favorable option, both financially (~42% cost reduction) and environmentally (62‐98% impact reduction). Wastewater utilities may find significant life cycle cost and environmental impact reductions in implementing a rain garden plan.

Vineyard, Donald↗
DOE OSTI2015

Life cycle costing of waste management systems: Overview, calculation principles and case studies

Highlights: • We propose a comprehensive model for cost assessment of waste management systems. • The model includes three types of LCC: Conventional, Environmental and Societal LCCs. • The applicability of the proposed model is tested with two case studies. - Abstract: This paper provides a detailed and comprehensive cost model for the economic assessment of solid waste management systems. The model was based on the principles of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and followed a bottom-up calculation approach providing detailed cost items for all key technologies within modern waste systems. All technologies were defined per tonne of waste input, and each cost item within a technology was characterised by both a technical and an economic parameter (for example amount and cost of fuel related to waste collection), to ensure transparency, applicability and reproducibility. Cost items were classified as: (1) budget costs, (2) transfers (for example taxes, subsidies and fees) and (3) externality costs (for example damage or abatement costs related to emissions and disamenities). Technology costs were obtained as the sum of all cost items (of the same type) within a specific technology, while scenario costs were the sum of all technologies involved in a scenario. The cost model allows for the completion of three types of LCC: a Conventional LCC, for the assessment of financial costs, an Environmental LCC, for the assessment of financial costs whose results are complemented by a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for the same system, and a Societal LCC, for socio-economic assessments. Conventional and Environmental LCCs includes budget costs and transfers, while Societal LCCs includes budget and externality costs. Critical aspects were found in the existing literature regarding the cost assessment of waste management, namely system boundary equivalency, accounting for temporally distributed emissions and impacts, inclusions of transfers, the internalisation of environmental impacts and the coverage of shadow prices, and there was also significant confusion regarding terminology. The presented cost model was implemented in two case study scenarios assessing the costs involved in the source segregation of organic waste from 100,000 Danish households and the subsequent co-digestion of organic waste with animal manure. Overall, source segregation resulted in higher financial costs than the alternative of incinerating the organic waste with the residual waste: 1.6 M€/year, of which 0.9 M€/year was costs for extra bins and bags used by the households, 1.0 M€/year for extra collections and −0.3 M€/year saved on incineration.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗