Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “alternatives”

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
NASA NTRS2006

Potential Alternatives Report for Validation of Alternative Low-Emission Surface PreparationlDepainting Technologies for Structural Steel

For this project, particulates and solvents used during the depainting process of steel structures were the identified hazardous material (HazMat) targeted for elimination or reduction. This Potential Alternatives Report (PAR) provides technical analyses of identified alternatives to the current coating removal processes, criteria used to select alternatives for further analysis, and a list of those alternatives recommended for testing. The initial coating removal alternatives list was compiled using literature searches and center participant recommendations. The involved project participants initially considered fifteen (15) alternatives. In late 2004, stakeholders down-selected the list and identified specific processes as potential alternatives to the current depainting methods. The selected alternatives were: 1. Plastic Blast Media 2. Hard Abrasive Media 3. Sponge Blast Media 4. Mechanical Removal with Vacuum Attachment 5. Liquid Nitrogen 6. Laser Coating Removal Available information about these processes was used to analyze the technical merits and the potential environmental, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) impacts of these methods. A preliminary cost benefit analysis will be performed to determine if implementation of alternative technologies is economically justified. NASA AP2

Lewis, Pattie↗
NASA NTRS2011

Potential Alternatives Report for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes

Identifying and selecting alternative materials and technologies that have the potential to reduce the identified HazMats and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), while incorporating sound corrosion prevention and control technologies, is a complicated task due to the fast pace at which new technologies emerge and rules change. The alternatives are identified through literature searches, electronic database and Internet searches, surveys, and/or personal and professional contacts. Available test data was then compiled on the proposed alternatives to determine if the materials meet the test objectives or if further)laboratory or field-testing will be required. After reviewing technical information documented in the PAR, government representatives, technical representatives from the affected facilities, and other stakeholders involved in the process will select the list of viable alternative coatings for consideration and testing under the project's Joint Test Protocol entitled Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes and Field Test Plan entitled Field Evaluations Test Plan for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, both prepared by ITB. Test results will be reported in a Joint Test Report upon completion oftesting. The selection rationale and conclusions are documented in this PAR. A cost benefit analysis will be prepared to quantify the estimated capital and process costs of coating alternatives and cost savings relative to the current coating processes, however, some initial cost data has been included in this PAR. For this coatings project, isocyanates, as found in aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes, were identified as the target HazMat to be eliminated. Table 1-1 lists the target HazMats, the related process and application, current specifications, and affected programs.

Lewis, pattie↗
DOE OSTI2024

Example Alternative Compliance Annual Report: EPAct State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program User Guide

The U.S. Department of Energy developed an electronic reporting spreadsheet to facilitate fleets' preparation of a complete Alternative Compliance (AC) annual report. All fleets that participate in AC are encouraged to use the spreadsheet. The following examples include one AC annual report that uses the spreadsheet and one AC annual report that does not use the spreadsheet. Both examples include all components that must be included in a fleet's AC annual report. For further instructions on how to use the reporting spreadsheet, review the Alternative Compliance Guidance Document.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,ENERGY PLANNING, POLIC↗
DOE OSTI2024

Example Alternative Compliance Waiver Application: EPAct State and Alternative Provider Fleet Program Guidance Document

The U.S. Department of Energy developed an electronic planning spreadsheet to facilitate fleets' preparation of a complete Alternative Compliance (AC) waiver application. All fleets that participate in AC are encouraged to use the spreadsheet. The example in this guidance document includes all components that must be included in a fleet’s AC waiver application.

AC waiver↗
NASA NTRS1972

Social impact evaluation : Some implications of the specific decisional context approach for anticipatory project assessment with special reference to available alternatives and to techniques of evaluating the social impacts of the anticipated effects of such alternatives

The implications are explored of the specific decision context approach to anticipatory project assessment. More specifically, it is hypothesized that with respect to any given effect of a proposed project or action (mobility, job opportunities, air pollution, population distribution, etc.) such effect will likely differ in probability and/or magnitude from one decisional context to another; that the social desirability or undesirability of a given effect is a function (will differ with) each specific decisional context; that therefore the social impact of such effect will in all likelihood differ with each specific decisional context; and that the social significance of even the dame social impact of a given effect will vary from one decisional context to another when such social impact interacts with (competes with or reinforces) the social impacts of other effects. It also follows from this analysis that the respective roles of scientific method (demonstrable data) and adversarial system will not only differ with each specific decisional context but with each alternative course of action available to the decisional entity in each specific context.

Mayo, L. H.↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for Resourceful and Economical Designing of Fermentation Medium for Lab and Commercial Strains of Yeast from Alternative Feedstock: Transgenic Oilcane

Sugarcane plant engineered to accumulate lipids in its vegetative tissue is being developed as a new bioenergy crop. The new crop would be a source of juice, oil, and cellulosic sugars. However, limited tolerance of industrially recognized yeasts towards inhibitors generated during the processing of lignocellulosic biomass to produce fermentable sugars is a major challenge in developing scalable processes for second-generation drop-in fuel production. To this end, hydrolysates generated from engineered sugarcane—‘oilcane’ bagasse contain added phenolics and fatty acids that further restrict the growth of fermenting microorganisms and necessitate nutrient supplementation and/or detoxification of hydrolysate which makes the fermentation process expensive. Herein, we propose a resourceful and economical approach for growing lab and commercial strains of S. cerevisiae on unrefined cellulosic sugars aerobically and fermentatively. An equal ratio of hydrolysate and juice was found optimum for growth and fermentation by lab and commercial strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae engineered for xylose fermentation. The industrial strain grew and fermented efficiently under low aeration conditions having an ethanol titer, yield, specific and volumetric productivities of 46.96 ± 0.19 g/l, 0.51 ± 0.00 g/g, 0.27 ± 0.02 g/g.h and 1.95 ± 0.01 g/l.h, respectively, while the lab strain grew better under higher aeration conditions having the ethanol titer, yield, specific and volumetric productivities of 24.93 ± 0.09, 0.27 ± 0.00 g/g, 0.17 ± 0.00 g/g.h and 1.04 ± 0.00 g/l.h, respectively. Acclimation of cultures in a blended medium significantly improved the performance of the yeast strains. The addition of transgenic oilcane juice, which is inedible and rich in amino acids, to the hydrolysate averted the need for expensive nutrient supplementation and detoxification steps of hydrolysate. The approach provides an economical solution to reduce the cost of fermentation at an industrial scale for second-generation drop-in fuel production.

Biomass Analytics↗
NASA NTRS2007

Cost-Benefit Analysis For Alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/ Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel

Stennis Space Center (SSC), Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) identified particulate emissions and waste generated from the depainting process of steel structures as hazardous materials to be eliminated or reduced. A Potential Alternatives Report, Potential Alternatives Report for Validation of Alternative Low Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel, provided a technical analyses of identified alternatives to the current coating removal processes, criteria used to select alternatives for further analysis, and a list of those alternatives recommended for testing. The initial coating removal alternatives list was compiled using literature searches and stakeholder recommendations. The involved project participants initially considered approximately 13 alternatives. In late 2003, core project members selected the following depainting processes to be further evaluated: (1) Plastic Blast Media-Quickstrip(R)-A. (2) Hard Abrasive-Steel-Magic(R). (3) Sponge Blasting-Sponge-Jet(R). (4) Liquid Nitrogen-NItroJet(R). (5) Mechanical Removal with Vacuum Attachment-DESCO and OCM Clean-Air (6) Laser Coating Removal Alternatives were tested in accordance with the Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel, and the Field Evaluation Test Plan for Validation of Alternative Low-Emission Surface Preparation/Depainting Technologies for Structural Steel. Results of the testing are documented in the Joint Test Report. This Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) focuses on the three alternatives (Quickstrip(R)-A, SteelMagic (R), and Sponge-Jet(R)) that were considered viable alternatives for large area operations based on the results of the field demonstration and lab testing. This CBA was created to help participants determine if implementation of the candidate alternatives is economically justified. Each of the alternatives examined reduced Environmental Activity (EA) Costs-those costs associated with complying with environmental regulations. One alternative, Steel-Magic(R), also showed reduced Direct Costs and reduced total costs.

Lewis, Pattie↗
NASA NTRS2007

Cost-Benefit Analysis for Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes

NASA and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) have similar missions and therefore similar facilities and structures in similar environments. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the application of an applied coating system. The most common topcoats used in coating systems are polyurethanes that contain isocyanates. Isocyanates are classified as potential human carcinogens and are known to cause cancer in animals. The primary objective of this effort was to demonstrate and validate alternatives to aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes resulting in one or more isocyanate-free coatings qualified for use at AFSPC and NASA installations participating in this project. This Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) quantifies the estimated capital and process costs of coating alternatives and cost savings relative to the current coatings. The estimates in this CBA are to be used for assessing the relative merits of the selected alternatives. The actual economic effects at any specific facility will depend on the alternative material or technology implemented, the number of actual applications converted, future workloads, and other factors . The participants initially considered eighteen (18) alternative coatings as described in the Potential Alternatives Report entitled Potential Alternatives Report for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, prepared by ITB. Of those, 8 alternatives were selected for testing in accordance with the Joint Test Protocol entitled Joint Test Protocol for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, and the Field Test Plan entitled Field Evaluations Test Plan for Validation of Alternatives 10 Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, both of which were prepared by ITB. A joint Test Report entitled Joint Test Report for Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes, prepared by ITB, documents the results of the laboratory and field testing, as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the testing. The coatings selected for evaluation in this CBA are shown in the table below. Only one control coating system is considered in this analysis. These coatings were either downselected for Phase II or performed well enough to be included in the Qualified Products List in the NASA technical standard NASA-STD-5008, Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment.

Lewis, Pattie↗
NASA NTRS2003

Three-Dimensional Magnetic Analysis Technique Developed for Evaluating Stirling Convertor Linear Alternators

The Department of Energy, the Stirling Technology Company (STC), and the NASA Glenn Research Center are developing Stirling convertors for Stirling radioisotope generators to provide electrical power for future NASA deep space missions. STC is developing the 55-We technology demonstration convertor (TDC) under contract to the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy recently named Lockheed Martin as the system integration contractor for the Stirling radioisotope generator development project. Lockheed Martin will develop the Stirling radioisotope generator engineering unit and has contract options to develop the qualification unit and the first flight unit. Glenn s role includes an in-house project to provide convertor, component, and materials testing and evaluation in support of the overall power system development. As a part of this work, Glenn has established an in-house Stirling research laboratory for testing, analyzing, and evaluating Stirling machines. STC has built four 55-We convertors for NASA, and these are being tested at Glenn. A cross-sectional view of the 55-We TDC is shown in the figure. Of critical importance to the successful development of the Stirling convertor for space power applications is the development of a lightweight and highly efficient linear alternator. In support, Glenn has been developing finite element analysis and finite element method tools for performing various linear alternator thermal and electromagnetic analyses and evaluating design configurations. A three-dimensional magnetostatic finite element model of STC's 55-We TDC linear alternator was developed to evaluate the demagnetization fields affecting the alternator magnets. Since the actual linear alternator hardware is symmetric to the quarter section about the axis of motion, only a quarter section of the alternator was modeled. The components modeled included the mover laminations, the neodymium-iron-boron magnets, the stator laminations, and the copper coils. The three-dimensional magnetostatic model was then coupled with a circuit simulator model of the alternator load and convertor controller. The coupled model was then used to generate alternator terminal voltage and current predictions. The predicted voltage and current waveforms agreed well with the experimental data, which tended to validate the accuracy of the coupled model. The model was then used to generate predictions of the demagnetization fields acting on the alternator magnets for the alternator under load. The preliminary model predictions indicate that the highest potential for demagnetization is along the inside surface of the uncovered magnets. The demagnetization field for the uncovered magnets when the mover is positioned at the end of a stroke is higher than it is when the mover is at the position of maximum induced voltage or maximum alternator current. Assuming normal load conditions, the model predicted that the onset of demagnetization is most likely to occur for magnet temperatures above 101 C.

Geng, Steven M.↗
DOE OSTI2024

RePED 250: Manufacturing and Market Analysis of High-Temperature Alternators

The novel repetitive pulsed electric drill 250 (RePED 250) has the potential to greatly lower the costs and drilling times of geothermal projects. This tool discharges electric pulses through hard rock formations, shattering the rock in tension and allowing it to be quickly removed. One hurdle in bringing this technology to market is the RePED 250 downhole alternator. This component is essential for supplying power to the electronic drilling tool. There are currently no downhole tools on the market that meet the RePED 250 alternator's high temperature and power requirements. This report focuses on the path to commercialization for this novel alternator technology being developed as part of the RePED 250 project. One aim of this work is to identify the geothermal market size for the RePED 250 alternator, as well as other potential markets for this technology outside of geothermal. The geothermal market is very small, with only approximately 13 wells drilled in the United States each year. The worldwide market is several times this size and growing each year. The ability of the RePED 250 technology to drastically reduce the cost of geothermal projects may also lead to an increase in this market size. Technology developed for the high-temperature, high-power RePED 250 alternator can also be used to create high-temperature and high-power motors. These motors and alternators will have potential applications in oil and gas drilling, a $300 billion dollar industry in the United States alone, as well as in more distant industries such as aircraft, weapon systems, space exploration, and electric vehicles. Other aspects of the RePED 250 alternator's path to commercialization are also analyzed, including the supply chain for production materials and potential manufacturing methods. The supply chain and manufacturing practices for low-temperature motors and alternators are well established and require relatively minor changes for the high-temperature and high-power RePED 250 alternator. Sourcing for high-temperature materials has been identified, as well as potential supply chain risks. These most notably include electrical steel and high-temperature samarium cobalt (SmCo) magnets. Overall, these risks are not expected to be significant at the likely manufacturing scale required for the RePED 250.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2012

Demagnetization Tests Performed on a Linear Alternator for a Stirling Power Convertor

The NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) is conducting in-house research on rare-earth permanent magnets and linear alternators to assist in developing free-piston Stirling convertors for radioisotope space power systems and for developing advanced linear alternator technology. This research continues at GRC, but, with the exception of Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator references, the work presented in this paper was conducted in 2005. A special arc-magnet characterization fixture was designed and built to measure the M-H characteristics of the magnets used in Technology Demonstration Convertors developed under the 110-W Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG110) project. This fixture was used to measure these characteristics of the arc magnets and to predict alternator demagnetization temperatures in the SRG110 application. Demagnetization tests using the TDC alternator on the Alternator Test Rig were conducted for two different magnet grades: Sumitomo Neomax 44AH and 42AH. The purpose of these tests was to determine the demagnetization temperatures of the magnets for the alternator under nominal loads. Measurements made during the tests included the linear alternator terminal voltage, current, average power, magnet temperatures, and stator temperatures. The results of these tests were found to be in good agreement with predictions. Alternator demagnetization temperatures in the Advanced Stirling Convertor (ASC-developed under the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator project) were predicted as well because the prediction method had been validated through the SRG110 alternator tests. These predictions led to a specification for maximum temperatures of the ASC pressure vessel.

Geng, Steven M.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Joint Test Report For Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) have similar missions and therefore similar facilities and structures in similar environments. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the application of an applied coating system. The most common topcoats used in coating systems are polyurethanes that contain isocyanates. Isocyanates are classified as potential human carcinogens and are known to cause cancer in animals. The primary objective of this effort was to demonstrate and validate alternatives to aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes resulting in one or more isocyanate-free coatings qualified for use at AFSPC and NASA installations participating in this project. This joint Test Report (JTR) documents the results of the laboratory and field testing as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the testing. The technical stakeholders agreed upon test procedure modifications documented in this document. This JTR is made available as a reference for future pollution prevention endeavors by other NASA centers, the Department of Defense and commercial users to minimize duplication of effort. All coating system candidates were tested using approved NASA and AFSPC standard coating systems as experimental controls. This study looked at eight alternative coating systems and two control coating systems and was divided into Phase I Screening Tests, Phase II Tests, and Field Testing. The Phase I Screening Tests were preliminary tests performed on all the selected candidate coating systems. Candidate coating systems that did not meet the acceptance criteria of the screening tests were eliminated from further testing. Phase I Screening Tests included: Ease of Application, Surface Appearance, Dry-To-Touch (Sanding), Accelerated Storage Stability, Pot Life (Viscosity), Cure Time (Solvent Rubs), Cleanability, Knife Test, Tensile (pull-off) Adhesion, and X-Cut Adhesion by Wet Tape After a review of the Phase I test results, four of the alternative coating systems showed substandard performance in relation to the Control Systems and were eliminated from the Phase II testing. Due to the interest of stakeholders and time constraints, however, all eight alternatives were subjected to the following Phase II tests, along with field testing at Stennis Space Center (SSC), Mississippi: Hypergol Compatibility, Liquid Oxygen Compatibility, 18-Month Marine Exposure (Gloss Retention, Color Retention, Blistering, Visual Corrosion, Creepage from Scribe, Heat Adhesion), and Field Exposure (6- and 12-month Evaluation for Coating Condition, Color Retention, Gloss Retention). The remaining four alternative coating systems determined to be the best viable alternatives were carried on to Phase II testing that included: Removability, Repairability, Abrasion Resistance, Gravelometer, Fungus Resistance, Accelerated Weathering, Mandrel Bend Flexibility, and Cyclic Corrosion Resistance. Of the systems that continued to Phase II, three (3) alternative coating systems meet the performance requirements as identified by stakeholders. Two (2) other systems, that were not included in Phase II testing, performed well enough on the 18-Month Marine Exposure, the primary requirement for NASA technical standard NASA-STD-5008, Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment, that they were also considered to be successful candidates. In total, five (5) alternative coating systems were approved for inclusion in the NASA-STD- 5008 Qualified Products List (QPL). The standard is intended to provide a common framework for consistent practices across NASA and is often used by other entities. The standard's QPL does not connote endorsement of the products by NASA, but lists those products that have been tested and meet the requirements as specified.

Lewis, Pattie↗