Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “standby diesel generators”

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
DOE OSTI2020

Reliability of emergency and standby diesel generators: Impact on energy resiliency solutions

Emergency diesel generators are the most common form of backup power for critical loads when the grid fails and are most often deployed as stand-alone generators (<2000 kW) tied to individual buildings for hospitals, emergency services, military bases, ports, airports, industries, and commercial facilities. Understanding the finite reliability of emergency diesel generators during continuous operation is critical for energy planners, managers, and end-users. A new analysis of two large non-public emergency diesel generator operational data sets shows that commonly used reliability metrics are inadequate to predict the performance during a grid outage. Additional metrics addressing the likelihood of an emergency diesel generator to be available at the time an outage starts, successfully start and carry load, and constantly run for the duration of the outage are needed to predict the continuous run-time reliability of emergency diesel generators during a grid outage. This is the first analysis of the reliability of modern generators that follow standard maintenance protocols commonly used for backup power and these new metrics are shown to be dependent on the level of emergency diesel generator maintenance with values that can vary by more than an order of magnitude. Even using the new metrics for well-maintained emergency diesel generators, the analysis shows that the single emergency diesel generators configurations are only 80% likely to provide power for the duration of a two-week grid outage.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY,POWER TRANSMI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Recommendations for an Applicant to Calculate Activity Data for Greenhouse Gases Estimates

In 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) directed the NRC staff to address climate change issues and consider the impacts of the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions (NRC 2009b). To implement this direction from the Commission, the staff issued guidance in 2011 and updated guidance in 2014 in Attachment 1 to Interim Staff Guidance COL/ESP-ISG-026 (NRC 2011; NRC 2014). This guidance provides a simpler method than the method described in RG 4.2 Rev. 3, that an applicant can use to meet the plant parameter envelope (PPE) value from the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors (NR GEIS). NRC staff estimated the 97-year lifecycle GHG emissions from a reference 1000 megawatt electrical (MWe) light-water reactor (LWR) for various activities associated with construction, operation (including uranium fuel cycle), and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and presented the results in Appendix H of the NR GEIS. Appendix H of the NR GEIS includes estimates of direct emissions from construction equipment and emergency diesel engines in a nuclear facility and indirect emissions from workforce vehicular traffic, fuel transportation and the uranium fuel cycle. The NR GEIS Section 3.3 extended the estimates in Appendix H for the installation of two 1000 MWe nuclear reactors on the same site. Scaling factors were used to extrapolate the GHG emissions of a reference 1000 MWe reactor to a two-unit nuclear reactor plant (each reactor unit generating 1000 MWe). GHG emission estimates for building, operation, decommissioning and safe storage (SAFSTOR) for a two-unit nuclear reactor plant would be based on the plant’s physical size, and therefore estimates for these source categories were assumed to be twice the value of the reference 1000 MWe reactor. However, GHG emissions from the fuel cycle (including fuel transportation) were scaled upward by a factor of 3, based on plant efficiencies greater than the 80 percent assumption in Appendix H. Table 1 below shows the PPE emissions for two 1000 MWe nuclear reactors as provided in NR GEIS. The total GHG emissions for two 1000 MWe reactors were calculated as 2,534,000 metric tons (MT) of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 (e)) based on a 97 year GHG life cycle period. The GHG emissions lifetime of 97 years for a reference nuclear reactor includes a 7-year building phase, 40 years of operation, 10 years of active decommissioning, and 40 years of SAFSTOR operations (NRC 2024). Construction equipment and vehicular traffic from workers commute would contribute to the GHG emissions during a 7-year building phase. Uranium fuel cycle, vehicular traffic, fuel and waste transportation, and testing of standby diesel generators would contribute to GHG emissions during the 40-year operations phase. While NRC’s regulations allow up to 60 years of reactor facility decommissioning, Appendix H estimated that most of the GHGs would occur over an estimated 10-year period during which to the licensee would engage in significant demolition and earth-moving activities, as discussed in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). Vehicular traffic by the workforce during a 40-year SAFSTOR period would additionally contribute GHG emissions. The carbon footprint for a 40-year SAFSTOR period was separately analyzed from the decommissioning activities as provided in Table YYYY-2 of the staff issued guidance in 2011 (NRC 2011).

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Emergency Diesel Generator Reliability and Installation Energy Security

The U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) fixed installations - or military bases - are a critical element of national security. Military bases support the maintenance and deployment of weapons systems, training and mobilization of combat forces, and provide direct support to combat operations. Fixed installations do not operate without energy and they rely largely on electricity to support critical missions and functions. Installations are dependent on a commercial grid that is vulnerable to disruption due to severe weather, physical attacks, and cyberattacks. This report looks at the impact on the highest priority critical loads.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Emergency Diesel Generator Backup Power Systems for Military Bases

Backup power systems on military installations must provide reliable power during a grid outage. The risks of blackouts and loss of electric power are not new. Outages of just a few hours are well known, but longer duration outages are becoming more frequent. The U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force now require backup power from one to two weeks. For multiday outages, the reliability of emergency diesel generators will have a significant impact on the installation’s backup power system’s ability to provide power for critical missions.

backup power↗
DOE OSTI2021

Impact of Emergency Diesel Generator Reliability on Microgrids and Building-Tied Systems

Microgrids are an emerging alternative as an energy backup system for critical electric loads and have improved performance compared to the traditional architecture where a single emergency diesel generator is tied to an individual building. Both architectures are dependent on the reliability of their individual generators and a quantitative and realistic comparison of the overall system reliability of the two architectures is lacking. Using recently published work on emergency diesel generator finite reliability, a quantitative methodology is presented to compare the reliability of a microgrid architecture based on centralized emergency diesel generators to the traditional approach of generators tied to individual buildings. Three system reliability performance metrics are calculated as a function of outage duration: (1) probability to meet 100% of the critical load; (2) expected fraction of lost load; and (3) probability to meet the highest priority critical loads. It is shown that stand-alone building-tied emergency diesel generators systems, even when two emergency diesel generators are used per building, cannot provide the reliability required to sustain critical loads for a grid outage lasting multiple days. Due to their network configuration and ability to share load, diesel generator-based microgrid configurations are estimated to have = 93% probability of powering all buildings for a 2-week outage there the individual building-tied emergency diesel generator architecture has a =20% probability. Microgrids do present other susceptibilities that are site specific and should be considered including vulnerabilities associated with the on-campus distribution system and cybersecurity.

backup power↗
DOE OSTI1975

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 16, No. 2, March-April 1975]

Nuclear Safety covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. The scope is limited to topics relevant to the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, safety considerations in regard to the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 127 Quality Assurance in the Construction of Nuclear Power Plants by Sidney A. Bernsen, 141 1974 ANS Topical Meeting on Fast Reactor Safety by M. H. Fontana; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 150 GBR-4 Protection Systems: Failures and Their Consequences by Peter Burgsmüller, J. J. Dekais, Albert Krähe, Raffaello Pignatelli, and Gottfried Vieider, 162 Standby Emergency Power Systems. Part 2—The Later Plants by E. W. Hagen; PLANT SAFETY FEATURES: 180 Radiotoxic Hazard Measure for Buried Solid Radioactive Waste by J. Hamstra, 190 The Thirteenth AEC Air-Cleaning Conference by D. W. Moeller, D. W. Underhill, and M. W. First, 203 Book Review: Nuclear Criticality Safety; CONSEQUENCES OF EFFLUENT RELEASE: 204 Environmental Radiation Effects of Nuclear Facilities in New York State by M. S. Terpilak and B. L. Jorgensen, 222 Book Review: Thermal Ecology; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 223 Set-Point Drift in Nuclear Power-Plant Safety-Related Instrumentation Adapted by the Nuclear Safety Staff, 224 Diesel-Generator Operating Experience at Nuclear Power Plants, 227 Summary of Operating U. S. Power Reactors as of Jan. 1, 1975, 232 Selected Safety-Related Occurrences Reported in November and December 1974 Compiled by William R. Casto, 235 Recent Occurrences at Nuclear Reactors and Their Causes Compiled by William R. Casto; CURRENT EVENTS: 243 General Administrative Activities Compiled by Wm. B. Cottrell, 251 Action on Power-Reactor Projects Undergoing Regulatory Review or Consideration Compiled by Wm. B. Cottrell, 266 Action on Nonreactor Projects Undergoing Regulatory Review or Consideration Compiled by Wm. B Cottrell, 268 Proposed Rule Changes as of Jan. 1, 1975; MISCELLANY: 149 Course in Italy on High-Energy Radiation Dosimetry and Protection (Announcement), 250 Course at Northwestern on Safety of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (Announcement), 266 Symposium of the Combined Effects on the Environment of Radioactive, Chemical, and Thermal Releases from the Nuclear Industry (Announcement), 271 Short Course on Engineering for Extreme Winds and Tornadoes (Announcement), 272 Three 1-Week Courses at MIT on Nuclear Power-Reactor Safety (Announcement), 272 Harvard University Short Courses (Announcement).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗