National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for levelized costs aeo

  1. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    202-586-6419 Vishakh Mantri, Ph.D, P.E. Chemical Engineer, Energy Information ... tcapehart@ers.usda.gov 202-694-5313 Chemical Production in the AEO Peter Gross Energy ...

  2. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Report," collects the cost and quality of fossil fuel purchases made by electric ... a reduction of approximately 9 percent of natural gas purchases, cost, and quality data. ...

  3. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    in 2016. On January 16, economic sanctions on Iran related to its nuclear program were lifted, officially allowing Iran to increase its crude oil production and export levels. ...

  4. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: After reaching a four-month low in the beginning of August, crude oil prices rebounded close to the highest levels of the year. The front-month Brent crude oil price increased $3.31 per barrel (b) since August 1, settling at $45.45/b on September 1 (Figure 1). The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) front-month crude oil price settled at $43.16/b, an increase of $3.10/b over the same period. Price volatility in global equity markets declined in

  5. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: After an upward move in mid-June, crude oil prices retreated close to previous levels. The North Sea Brent front month futures price settled at $111/barrel on July 3, an increase of $2.17/barrel from June 2 (Figure 1). The front month West Texas Intermediate (WTI) contract also rose, settling at $104.06/barrel on July 3, $1.59/barrel higher than on June 2. Tensions in Iraq were the primary driver of the crude oil price increase in mid-June.

  6. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: International crude oil futures prices rebounded in April and approached the top of their recent trading range. The North Sea Brent front month futures price settled at $107.76 per barrel (bbl) on May 1, an increase of $2.14/bbl from April 1 (Figure 1). West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices at the start of May were near the same levels as the beginning of April. The front month WTI contract settled at $99.42/bbl on May 1, a slight decrease

  7. Overview of Levelized Cost of Energy in the AEO

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Presented to the EIA Energy Conference June 17, 2013 Chris Namovicz Assessing the Economic Value of New Utility-Scale Renewable Generation Projects Overview * Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) has been used by planners, analysts, policymakers, advocates and others to assess the economic competitiveness of technology options in the electric power sector * While of limited usefulness in the analysis of "conventional" utility systems, this approach is not generally appropriate when

  8. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... Confidentiality of information The information contained on Form EIA-877 will be kept confidential and not disclosed to the public to the extent that it satisfies the criteria for ...

  9. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5 Table 6. Natural gas processed, liquids extracted, and natural gas plant liquids production, by state, 2014 Alabama 80,590 5,139 7,044 Alabama Onshore Alabama 31,116 2,620 3,323 Alabama Offshore Alabama 49,474 2,519 3,721 Alaska 2,735,783 15,724 18,434 Alaska Onshore 2,735,783 15,724 18,434 Alaska Offshore 0 0 0 Arkansas 8,058 457 582 Arkansas 8,058 457 582 California 162,794 9,605 13,201 California Onshore California 162,413 9,597 13,192 California Offshore California 381 8 9 Federal Offshore

  10. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5 1 April 2015 Short-Term Energy Outlook Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: After increasing in February, global crude oil prices declined in March. The North Sea Brent front month futures price settled at $54.95/bbl on April 2, a decline of $4.59/bbl since the close on March 2 (Figure 1). The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) front month futures price declined by $0.45/bbl over the same period to settle at $49.14/bbl on April 2. The average Brent price for March was 3.2% lower

  11. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Outlook Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: After increasing at the start of March, crude oil prices stabilized and traded within a relatively narrow range through the first week of April. The North Sea Brent front month futures price rose $2.62 per barrel (b) from March 1 to settle at $39.43/b on April 7 (Figure 1). The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) front month futures price rose $2.86/b and settled at $37.26 over the same period. The increase in crude oil prices alongside

  12. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: Crude oil prices moved lower through much of July and early August. The North Sea Brent front month futures price declined $12.49 per barrel (b) since July 1 to settle at $49.52/b on August 6 (Figure 1). The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) front month futures price declined $12.30/b over the same time, settling at $44.66/b on August 6. Both benchmarks recorded their largest month-over-month decline since January 2015. One of the factors that

  13. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1 December 2014 Short-Term Energy Outlook Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: Crude oil prices continued to move lower in November and recorded their fifth consecutive month of declines. The North Sea Brent front month futures price settled at $69.64/bbl on December 4, a decline of $15.14/bbl from November 3 (Figure 1). The front month West Texas Intermediate (WTI) contract price settled at $66.81/bbl on December 4, decreasing by $11.97/bbl since the start of November. The

  14. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: Crude oil prices moved higher toward the end of January and into the first week of February. The North Sea Brent front month futures price settled at $56.57/bbl on February 5, an increase of $0.15/bbl from January 2 (Figure 1). The front month West Texas Intermediate (WTI) contract price settled at $50.48/bbl on February 5, $2.21/bbl lower than at the start of January. These changes were relatively small compared to an average

  15. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: Global and domestic crude oil prices traded in a narrow range in June. The North Sea Brent front month futures price declined $2.87 per barrel (b) since June 1 to settle at $62.01/b on July 1 (Figure 1). The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) front month futures price declined $3.24/b over the month, settling at $56.96/b on July 1. As global crude oil supply remains robust, demand-side factors are likely contributing to renewed price stability

  16. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: International crude oil prices declined in May and in the first week of June while domestic crude oil prices stayed relatively stable. The North Sea Brent front month futures declined $4.43 per barrel (b) since May 1 to settle at $62.03/b on June 4 (Figure 1). The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) front month futures price decreased $1.15/b over the same period to settle at $58/b on June 4. Elevated crude oil production from members of The

  17. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: International crude oil futures prices rose over the previous month but remained within the recent, and relatively narrow, trading range. The North Sea Brent front month futures price settled at $108.10 per barrel (bbl) on March 6, an increase of $2.06/bbl from February 3 (Figure 1). Over the same period, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) front month futures contract rose $5.13/bbl, settling at $101.56/bbl on March 6. The brief uptick in

  18. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: North Sea Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) front month futures contracts continued their recent decline in October and the first week of November as a larger-than-normal seasonal decrease in global refinery runs from August through October lessened demand for crude oil. The Brent contract settled at $103.46 per barrel on November 7, a decline of $4.48 per barrel compared to October 1 (Figure 1). The decreases in WTI futures prices

  19. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4 1 November 2014 Short-Term Energy Outlook Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: Both international and domestic crude oil prices moved sharply lower over the previous five weeks. The North Sea Brent front month futures price settled at $82.86/bbl on November 6, a decline of $11.30/bbl from October 1 (Figure 1). The front month West Texas Intermediate (WTI) contract price settled at $77.91/bbl on November 6, decreasing by $12.82/bbl since the start of October. November marked

  20. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3 1 October 2013 Short-Term Energy Outlook Market Prices and Uncertainty Report Crude Oil Prices: Front month futures prices for the Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil benchmarks fell in September. The Brent contract settled at $109.00 per barrel on October 3, a decline of $6.68 per barrel since September 3, and WTI settled at $103.31 per barrel on October 3, falling by $5.23 per barrel over the same period (Figure 1). These changes marked the first month-over-month declines in

  1. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) End-Use Models FAQs 1 February 2013 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) End-Use Models FAQs What is an end-use model? An end-use model is a set of equations designed to disaggregate a RECS sample household's total annual fuel consumption into end uses such as space heating, air conditioning, water heating, refrigeration, and so on. These disaggregated values are then weighted up to produce population estimates of total and average energy end

  2. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    (Table 7d), electricity generation fuel consumption (Table 7e), and renewable energy (Table 8). ... industrial sectors into a single "end use" sector. 1 Table 7a will now ...

  3. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    The number of operational oil rigs in the United States dropped each week in September and the latest Petroleum ... Fall seasonal maintenance at U.S. refineries typically does not ...

  4. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    when global demand for petroleum products is weakening, ... into the United States were relatively constant from September to October, and with U.S. refineries currently ...

  5. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Key members of The Organization of Petroleum Exporting ... straight weeks in the United States through November 27 and ... 3), gross inputs to refineries rose 0.21 million ...

  6. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    At a time of seasonally increasing demand and higher petroleum product consumption in the United States and ... Over time, refineries can adjust petroleum product yields in order ...

  7. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    supply reductions and better economic data in the United States. ... leading Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries ... Gross inputs to refineries in PADD 3 rose 0.1 million bd ...

  8. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Recent manufacturing data for the United States and China were above expectations, supporting demand for petroleum ... by the ability of refineries in the U.S. to absorb ...

  9. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... Those schedules include; * Schedule 2, General Information and Energy Sources and ... EIA-861. These schedules include Schedule 2C Green Pricing and Schedule 2D Net Metering. ...

  10. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Recent actions by the People's Bank of China (PBoC) and worse-than-expected economic data from China and Japan have increased uncertainty about global economic growth, particularly ...

  11. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Manufacturing activity in China continued to contract and volatility in Chinese financial ... purchasing managers' index: The Caixin China General Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' ...

  12. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... Outlook September 2014 3 Brent and the U.S. dollar: The divergence of growth expectations between the United States and the rest of the world is also reflected in currency markets. ...

  13. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... curves further suggests that the recent tightness in the crude oil markets reflects high refinery runs in the United States and the rest of the world as well as supply issues. ...

  14. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Although the U.S. economic data was strong, economic data in the rest of the world was generally below expectations and was met with declining equity prices and higher bond yields ...

  15. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    On the consumption side, the demand response to lower oil prices may be higher than anticipated, particularly in the United States and Europe, and could tighten markets during peak ...

  16. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    liquid fuels Fuels (other than alcohol) derived from biological materials (biofuels such as soy diesel fuel) Electricity (including electricity from solar energy) ...

  17. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... Notes: The approximate break between historical and forecast values is shown with ... EIA does not estimate or project end-use consumption of non-marketed renewable energy. (d) ...

  18. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    From a market perspective, commodity buyers do not typically care about the source of a product as long as its chemical composition meets specifications. We are proposing to rework ...

  19. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    The decline was largely due to U.S. Gulf Coast (PADD 3) crude oil prices strengthening against international benchmarks. The Brent-Light Louisiana Sweet (LLS) price spread settled ...

  20. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    The Brent-Louisiana Light Sweet (LLS) spread settled at -0.34bbl on October 2, a decline of 4.30bbl since September 2 (Figure 3). A small differential between Brent and LLS, ...

  1. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Information Administration | Short-Term Energy Outlook May 2016 2 Louisiana Light Sweet (LLS) crude oil prices rose more than other crude oils and is trading at a premium to Brent. ...

  2. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    The differential is composed of a relatively stable Louisiana Light Sweet (LLS)-WTI ... on the discount needed to incentivize PADD 3 refineries to run light sweet crude oil. ...

  3. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    International crude oil prices increased compared with domestic ones in June. The Brent-Light Louisiana Sweet (LLS) differential increased 50 centsb since June 1, settling at -54 ...

  4. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decreased demand for crude oil from refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast closed the import window for light sweet crude oil into the U.S. Gulf Coast, as can been by the LLS-Brent ...

  5. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... Increases in both the Brent-Louisiana Light Sweet (LLS) and LLS-WTI contributed to the wider Brent-WTI differential. These spread movements should encourage incremental movements ...

  6. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... The buyer must return the propane portion to the seller either through physical delivery or a separate payment at the propane market price. Propane prices were high enough that ...

  7. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... as well as a general loosening of international balances, impacted the Brent curve. ... Oil company integration: Most energy companies recently released full-year financial ...

  8. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Oklahoma, inventories for the week ending August 1. Crude production in the Permian Basin, the largest crude oil producing region in the United States, increased 0.23 million ...

  9. 2017 Levelized Costs AEO 2012 Early Release

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ... prices and future policies may cause plant owners or investors who finance plants to ... when evaluating investments in new coal-fired power plants, new coal-to-liquids (CTL) ...

  10. Electricity Plant Cost Uncertainties (released in AEO2009)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2009-01-01

    Construction costs for new power plants have increased at an extraordinary rate over the past several years. One study, published in mid-2008, reported that construction costs had more than doubled since 2000, with most of the increase occurring since 2005. Construction costs have increased for plants of all types, including coal, nuclear, natural gas, and wind.

  11. World Oil Prices in AEO2006 (released in AEO2006)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2006-01-01

    World oil prices in the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO) reference case are substantially higher than those in the AEO2005 reference case. In the AEO2006 reference case, world crude oil prices, in terms of the average price of imported low-sulfur, light crude oil to U.S. refiners, decline from current levels to about $47 per barrel (2004 dollars) in 2014, then rise to $54 per barrel in 2025 and $57 per barrel in 2030. The price in 2025 is approximately $21 per barrel higher than the corresponding price projection in the AEO2005 reference case.

  12. levelized costs

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    levelized costs - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Energy Defense Waste Management Programs Advanced Nuclear

  13. AEO2016 Electricity Working Group

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis December 8, 2015 | Washington, DC AEO2016 Electricity Working Group WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE What to look for: Electricity sector in AEO2016 * Inclusion of EPA final Clean Power Plan in Reference Case * Updated cost estimates for new generating technologies * Major data update on existing coal plant status: MATS- compliant technology or retirement

  14. World Oil Prices and Production Trends in AEO2008 (released in AEO2008)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2008-01-01

    Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO) defines the world oil price as the price of light, low-sulfur crude oil delivered in Cushing, Oklahoma. Since 2003, both "above ground" and "below ground" factors have contributed to a sustained rise in nominal world oil prices, from $31 per barrel in 2003 to $69 per barrel in 2007. The AEO2008 reference case outlook for world oil prices is higher than in the AEO2007 reference case. The main reasons for the adoption of a higher reference case price outlook include continued significant expansion of world demand for liquids, particularly in non-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries, which include China and India; the rising costs of conventional non-OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) supply and unconventional liquids production; limited growth in non-OPEC supplies despite higher oil prices; and the inability or unwillingness of OPEC member countries to increase conventional crude oil production to levels that would be required for maintaining price stability. The Energy Information Administration will continue to monitor world oil price trends and may need to make further adjustments in future AEOs.

  15. First AEO2015 Liquid Fuels Markets Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    AEO2016: revise refinery process units costs; non-petroleum process study to inform ... Factors influencing crude oil or condensate exports include logistics and the different ...

  16. AEO2015 BWG

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Behjat Hojjati Kevin Jarzomski David Peterson Steve Wade Owen Comstock (currently on detail) August 7, 2014 AEO2015 Model Updates Discussion purposes only - do not cite or circulate Overview AEO2015 Builldings Working Group Washington, D.C., August 7, 2014 2 * Shorter AEO this year * Federal standards * End-use technology characterizations * Historical updates * Discussion Discussion purposes only - do not cite or circulate Federal standards AEO2015 Builldings Working Group Washington, D.C.,

  17. AEO2017 Modeling updates in the transportation sector

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7 For AEO2017 Transportation Working Group August 31, 2016 | Washington, DC By Melissa Lynes, John Maples, Mark Schipper, and David Stone Office of Energy Consumption and Efficiency Analysis Modeling updates in the transportation sector Updates to the Annual Energy Outlook 2017 * Transportation demand model highlights - 10-year extension of last-year projection, AEO2016 is 2040 and AEO2017 is 2050 - Battery costs for electric vehicles - Phase 2 greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for

  18. Impacts of Rising Construction and Equipment Costs on Energy Industries (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    Costs related to the construction industry have been volatile in recent years. Some of the volatility may be related to higher energy prices. Prices for iron and steel, cement, and concrete -- commodities used heavily in the construction of new energy projects -- rose sharply from 2004 to 2006, and shortages have been reported. How such price fluctuations may affect the cost or pace of new development in the energy industries is not known with any certainty, and short-term changes in commodity prices are not accounted for in the 25-year projections in Annual Energy Outlook 2007. Most projects in the energy industries require long planning and construction lead times, which can lessen the impacts of short-term trends.

  19. Impacts of Uncertainty in Energy Project Costs (released in AEO2008)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2008-01-01

    From the late 1970s through 2002, steel, cement, and concrete prices followed a general downward trend. Since then, however, iron and steel prices have increased by 8% in 2003, 10% in 2004, and 31% in 2005. Although iron and steel prices declined in 2006, early data for 2007 show another increase. Cement and concrete prices, as well as the composite cost index for all construction commodities, have shown similar trends but with smaller increases in 2004 and 2005.

  20. AEO2016 Electricity Working Group

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    in Reference Case: coal ash, cooling water intake, effluent limits (under ... Regulation AEO2015 Assumption AEO2016 Assumption Comment Cooling Water Intakes (Clean ...

  1. World Oil Prices in AEO2007 (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    Over the long term, the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 (AEO) projection for world oil prices -- defined as the average price of imported low-sulfur, light crude oil to U.S. refiners -- is similar to the AEO2006 projection. In the near term, however, AEO2007 projects prices that are $8 to $10 higher than those in AEO2006.

  2. Comparison of AEO 2006 Natural Gas Price Forecast to NYMEX FuturesPrices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan

    2005-12-19

    On December 12, 2005, the reference case projections from ''Annual Energy Outlook 2006'' (AEO 2006) were posted on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) web site. We at LBNL have in the past compared the EIA's reference case long-term natural gas price forecasts from the AEO series to contemporaneous natural gas prices that can be locked in through the forward market, with the goal of better understanding fuel price risk and the role that renewables play in mitigating such risk (see, for example, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/53587.pdf or http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/54751.pdf). As such, we were curious to see how the latest AEO gas price forecast compares to the NYMEX natural gas futures strip. This brief memo presents our findings. As a refresher, our past work in this area has found that over the past five years, forward natural gas contracts (with prices that can be locked in--e.g., gas futures, swaps, and physical supply) have traded at a premium relative to contemporaneous long-term reference case gas price forecasts from the EIA. As such, we have concluded that, over the past five years at least, levelized cost comparisons of fixed-price renewable generation with variable price gas-fired generation that have been based on AEO natural gas price forecasts (rather than forward prices) have yielded results that are ''biased'' in favor of gas-fired generation, presuming that long-term price stability is valued. In this memo we simply update our past analysis to include the latest long-term gas price forecast from the EIA, as contained in AEO 2006. For the sake of brevity, we do not rehash information (on methodology, potential explanations for the premiums, etc.) contained in our earlier reports on this topic; readers interested in such information are encouraged to download that work from http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/53587.pdf or http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/54751.pdf. As was the case in the past five AEO releases (AEO 2001-AEO

  3. Comparison of AEO 2007 Natural Gas Price Forecast to NYMEX FuturesPrices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan

    2006-12-06

    On December 5, 2006, the reference case projections from 'Annual Energy Outlook 2007' (AEO 2007) were posted on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) web site. We at LBNL have, in the past, compared the EIA's reference case long-term natural gas price forecasts from the AEO series to contemporaneous natural gas prices that can be locked in through the forward market, with the goal of better understanding fuel price risk and the role that renewables play in mitigating such risk (see, for example, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/53587.pdf or http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/54751.pdf). As such, we were curious to see how the latest AEO gas price forecast compares to the NYMEX natural gas futures strip. This brief memo presents our findings. As a refresher, our past work in this area has found that over the past six years, forward natural gas contracts (with prices that can be locked in--e.g., gas futures, swaps, and physical supply) have traded at a premium relative to contemporaneous long-term reference case gas price forecasts from the EIA. As such, we have concluded that, over the past six years at least, levelized cost comparisons of fixed-price renewable generation with variable-price gas-fired generation that have been based on AEO natural gas price forecasts (rather than forward prices) have yielded results that are 'biased' in favor of gas-fired generation, presuming that long-term price stability is valued. In this memo we simply update our past analysis to include the latest long-term gas price forecast from the EIA, as contained in AEO 2007. For the sake of brevity, we do not rehash information (on methodology, potential explanations for the premiums, etc.) contained in our earlier reports on this topic; readers interested in such information are encouraged to download that work from http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/53587.pdf or http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/54751.pdf. As was the case in the past six AEO releases (AEO 2001-AEO 2006), we

  4. AEO2016 - Issues in Focus articles - U.S. Energy Information...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Analysis & Projections Annual Energy Outlook 2016 Full Release Date: Mid September ... Changing environment for fuel use in electricity generation Nuclear power in AEO2012 Cost ...

  5. Summary of AEO2016 Electricity Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... participant asked if EIA will still include a 3% premium to the capital cost for coal-fired. ... The AEO 2016 will include 3 GW of potential accelerated nuclear power plant retirements ...

  6. AEO2014 Preliminary Results

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    September 26, 2013 AEO2014 Preliminary Results For discussion purposes only Not for citation Overview 2 * Residential projects - RECS update - Housing stock formation and decay - Lighting model - ENERGY STAR homes benchmarking - Weather elasticities * Commercial projects - Major end-use capacity factors - Data center servers - ENERGY STAR buildings - Hurdle rate floor * Both sectors - Usual annual updates - Miscellaneous end-use technology assumptions updates - Distributed generation * Contract

  7. Comparison of AEO 2005 natural gas price forecast to NYMEX futures prices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan

    2004-12-13

    On December 9, the reference case projections from ''Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO 2005)'' were posted on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) web site. As some of you may be aware, we at LBNL have in the past compared the EIA's reference case long-term natural gas price forecasts from the AEO series to contemporaneous natural gas prices that can be locked in through the forward market, with the goal of better understanding fuel price risk and the role that renewables play in mitigating such risk. As such, we were curious to see how the latest AEO gas price forecast compares to the NYMEX natural gas futures strip. This brief memo presents our findings. As a refresher, our past work in this area has found that over the past four years, forward natural gas contracts (e.g., gas futures, swaps, and physical supply) have traded at a premium relative to contemporaneous long-term reference case gas price forecasts from the EIA. As such, we have concluded that, over the past four years at least, levelized cost comparisons of fixed-price renewable generation with variable price gas-fired generation that have been based on AEO natural gas price forecasts (rather than forward prices) have yielded results that are ''biased'' in favor of gas-fired generation (presuming that long-term price stability is valued). In this memo we simply update our past analysis to include the latest long-term gas price forecast from the EIA, as contained in AEO 2005. For the sake of brevity, we do not rehash information (on methodology, potential explanations for the premiums, etc.) contained in our earlier reports on this topic; readers interested in such information are encouraged to download that work from http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/53587.pdf or, more recently (and briefly), http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/54751.pdf. As was the case in the past four AEO releases (AEO 2001-AE0 2004), we once again find that the AEO 2005 reference case gas price forecast falls well below

  8. Levelized Power Generation Cost Codes

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1996-04-30

    LPGC is a set of nine microcomputer programs for estimating power generation costs for large steam-electric power plants. These programs permit rapid evaluation using various sets of economic and technical ground rules. The levelized power generation costs calculated may be used to compare the relative economics of nuclear and coal-fired plants based on life-cycle costs. Cost calculations include capital investment cost, operation and maintenance cost, fuel cycle cost, decommissioning cost, and total levelized power generationmore » cost. These programs can be used for quick analyses of power generation costs using alternative economic parameters, such as interest rate, escalation rate, inflation rate, plant lead times, capacity factor, fuel prices, etc. The two major types of electric generating plants considered are pressurized water reactor (PWR) and pulverized coal-fired plants. Data are also provided for the Large Scale Prototype Breeder (LSPB) type liquid metal reactor.« less

  9. Industrial Plans for AEO2014

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    30, 2013 | Washington, DC WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE Industrial team plans for AEO2014 Overview -- AEO2014 * Process flow status & updates * Other model updates * Major data updates * CHP updates 2 Industrial Team Washington DC, July 30, 2013 WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE Process flow models * General: - Replace energy consumption based on

  10. Renewable Electricity in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    For Renewable Electricity Working Group July 24, 2014 Christopher Namovicz and Gwen Bredehoeft Renewable Electricity Analysis Team AEO2014 results and status updates for the AEO2015 Agenda Renewable Electricity Analysis Team July 24, 2014 2 * Review of AEO2014 - Changes made for AEO2014 - Review of Results * Status of AEO2015 * Updates planned for AEO2015 WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE Updates included in the AEO2014

  11. Load Leveling Battery System Costs

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1994-10-12

    SYSPLAN evaluates capital investment in customer side of the meter load leveling battery systems. Such systems reduce the customer's monthly electrical demand charge by reducing the maximum power load supplied by the utility during the customer's peak demand. System equipment consists of a large array of batteries, a current converter, and balance of plant equipment and facilities required to support the battery and converter system. The system is installed on the customer's side of themore » meter and controlled and operated by the customer. Its economic feasibility depends largely on the customer's load profile. Load shape requirements, utility rate structures, and battery equipment cost and performance data serve as bases for determining whether a load leveling battery system is economically feasible for a particular installation. Life-cycle costs for system hardware include all costs associated with the purchase, installation, and operation of battery, converter, and balance of plant facilities and equipment. The SYSPLAN spreadsheet software is specifically designed to evaluate these costs and the reduced demand charge benefits; it completes a 20 year period life cycle cost analysis based on the battery system description and cost data. A built-in sensitivity analysis routine is also included for key battery cost parameters. The life cycle cost analysis spreadsheet is augmented by a system sizing routine to help users identify load leveling system size requirements for their facilities. The optional XSIZE system sizing spreadsheet which is included can be used to identify a range of battery system sizes that might be economically attractive. XSIZE output consisting of system operating requirements can then be passed by the temporary file SIZE to the main SYSPLAN spreadsheet.« less

  12. First AEO2014 Macro-Industrial Working Group Meeting Summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    In comparing the AEO2014 macro industrial forecast with the AEO2013, the presenters ... on the status of ongoing process flow project, which replaces energy consumption models ...

  13. A sensitivity analysis of the treatment of wind energy in the AEO99 version of NEMS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Osborn, Julie G; Wood, Frances; Richey, Cooper; Sanders, Sandy; Short, Walter; Koomey, Jonathan

    2001-01-01

    Each year, the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes a forecast of the domestic energy economy in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). During the forecast period of the AEO (currently through 2020), renewable energy technologies have typically not achieved significant growth. The contribution of renewable technologies as electric generators becomes more important, however, in scenarios analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions or significant technological advancements. We examined the economic assumptions about wind power used for producing forecasts with the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to determine their influence on the projected capacity expansion of this technology. This analysis should help illustrate to policymakers what types of issues may affect wind development, and improve the general understanding of the NEMS model itself. Figure 1 illustrates the model structure and factors relevant to wind deployment. We found that NEMS uses various cost multipliers and constraints to represent potential physical and economic limitations to growth in wind capacity, such as resource depletion, costs associated with rapid manufacturing expansion, and grid stability with high levels of capacity from intermittent resources. The model's flexibility allows the user to make alternative assumptions about the magnitude of these factors. While these assumptions have little effect on the Reference Case forecast for the 1999 edition of the AEO, they can make a dramatic difference when wind is more attractive, such as under a carbon permit trading system. With $100/ton carbon permits, the wind capacity projection for 2020 ranges from 15 GW in the unaltered model (AEO99 Reference Case) to 168 GW in the extreme case when all the multipliers and constraints examined in this study are removed. Furthermore, if modifications are made to the model allowing inter-regional transmission of electricity, wind capacity is forecast to reach 214

  14. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: Summary of Provisions (released in AEO2008)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2008-01-01

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed into law on December 19, 2007, and became Public Law 110-140. Provisions in EISA2007 that require funding appropriations to be implemented, whose impact is highly uncertain, or that require further specification by federal agencies or Congress are not included in Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO). For example, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) does not try to anticipate policy responses to the many studies required by EISA2007, nor to predict the impact of research and development (R&D) funding authorizations included in the bill. Moreover, AEO2008 does not include any provision that addresses a level of detail beyond that modeled in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), which was used to develop the AEO2008 projections. AEO2008 addresses only those provisions in EISA2007 that establish specific tax credits, incentives, or standards.

  15. Levelized cost and levelized avoided cost of new generation resources...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    3 The importance of the factors varies among the technologies. For technologies such as solar and wind generation that have no fuel costs and relatively small variable O&M costs,...

  16. AEO2017 Preliminary Macroeconomic Results

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    AEO2017 Preliminary Macroeconomic Results For Macroeconomic Working Group July 28, 2016 | Washington, DC By Vipin Arora, Elizabeth Sendich, and Russ Tarver Macroeconomic Analysis Team Economic growth in major trading partners slows over the projection period while the dollar gradually depreciates Macroeconomic Working Group, Washington DC, July 28, 2016 2 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 real trade-weighted GDP of major trading

  17. AEO2014 Renewables Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    FOR: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Alan Beamon Office Director, Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis FROM: Chris Namovicz, Renewable Electricity Analysis Team SUBJECT: AEO2014 Renewables Working Group Meeting This Renewables Working Group meeting on July 9, 2013 was the first of two, and focused on the assumptions and modeling efforts that EIA plans on using as the starting point for its AEO 2014 renewable electricity projections. The meeting was

  18. File:AEO2012earlyrelease.pdf | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AEO2012earlyrelease.pdf Jump to: navigation, search File File history File usage File:AEO2012earlyrelease.pdf Size of this preview: 463 599 pixels. Other resolution: 464 600...

  19. First AEO2015 Oil and Gas Working Group Meeting Summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    GAS MARKETS TEAMS SUBJECT: First AEO2015 Oil and Gas Working Group Meeting Summary ... The shorter AEO2015 will have 6 cases - Reference case, HighLow Oil Price cases, HighLow ...

  20. State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals: Update through 2009 (Update) (released in AEO2010)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2010-01-01

    To the extent possible,Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO) incorporates the impacts of state laws requiring the addition of renewable generation or capacity by utilities doing business in the states. Currently, 30 states and the District of Columbia have enforceable renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or similar laws). Under such standards, each state determines its own levels of generation, eligible technologies, and noncompliance penalties. AEO2010 includes the impacts of all laws in effect as of September 2009 (with the exception of Hawaii, because the National Energy Modeling System provides electricity market projections for the continental United States only).

  1. Industrial Sector Energy Demand: Revisions for Non-Energy-Intensive Manufacturing (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    For the industrial sector, the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) analysis and projection efforts generally have focused on the energy-intensive industriesfood, bulk chemicals, refining, glass, cement, steel, and aluminumwhere energy cost averages 4.8% of annual operating cost. Detailed process flows and energy intensity indicators have been developed for narrowly defined industry groups in the energy-intensive manufacturing sector. The non-energy-intensive manufacturing industries, where energy cost averages 1.9% of annual operating cost, previously have received somewhat less attention, however. In Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO), energy demand projections were provided for two broadly aggregated industry groups in the non-energy-intensive manufacturing sector: metal-based durables and other non-energy-intensive. In the AEO2006 projections, the two groups accounted for more than 50% of the projected increase in industrial natural gas consumption from 2004 to 2030.

  2. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants; Volume...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Cases) X LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering acfm Actual cubic feet per minute AEO Annual Energy Outlook BACT Best...

  3. Summary of AEO2015 Renewable Electricity Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    August 13, 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Jim Diefenderfer Office Director Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis Paul Holtberg Team Leader Analysis Integration Team FROM: Renewable Electricity Analysis Team SUBJECT: Summary of AEO2015 Renewable Electricity Working Group Meeting held on July 24, 2014 Presenters: Chris Namovicz, Gwen Bredehoeft Topics included AEO2014 model and data updates, a summary of AEO2014 model results,

  4. First AEO2015 Macro-Industrial Working Group Meeting Summary

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    forecast, with EIA's preliminary energy prices. Important model enhancements implemented for AEO2015, such as updated supply and demand relationships used to project ...

  5. Levelized Costs for Nuclear, Gas and Coal for Electricity, under...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Conference: Levelized Costs for Nuclear, Gas and Coal for Electricity, under the Mexican Scenario Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Levelized Costs for Nuclear, Gas and ...

  6. World Oil Prices and Production Trends in AEO2009 (released in AEO2009)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2009-01-01

    The oil prices reported in Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (AEO) represent the price of light, low-sulfur crude oil in 2007 dollars. Projections of future supply and demand are made for "liquids," a term used to refer to those liquids that after processing and refining can be used interchangeably with petroleum products. In AEO2009, liquids include conventional petroleum liquids -- such as conventional crude oil and natural gas plant liquids -- in addition to unconventional liquids, such as biofuels, bitumen, coal-to-liquids (CTL), gas-to-liquids (GTL), extra-heavy oils, and shale oil.

  7. Energy Technologies on the Horizon (released in AEO2006)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2006-01-01

    A key issue in mid-term forecasting is the representation of changing and developing technologies. How existing technologies will evolve, and what new technologies might emerge, cannot be known with certainty. The issue is of particular importance in Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO), the first AEO with projections out to 2030.

  8. Buildings Working Group Meeting AEO2016 Preliminary Results

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Buildings Working Group Meeting Office of Energy Consumption and Efficiency Analysis February 18, 2016 | Washington, DC By Buildings Energy Analysis Team AEO2016 Preliminary Results Discussion purposes only - do not cite or circulate Overview * Key policies - Clean Power Plan - Federal standards and ENERGY STAR specifications * Sector drivers - Fuel prices - Weather - Commercial floorspace * Distributed generation * Residential and commercial consumption AEO2016 Buildings Working Group,

  9. Levelized Cost of Energy in US | OpenEI Community

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Levelized Cost of Energy in US Home I'd like to pull a cost comparison for the levelized cost of energy in the US. How do I do this on this site? Does the LCOE interactive table...

  10. levelized cost of energy | OpenEI Community

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    levelized cost of energy Home Kch's picture Submitted by Kch(24) Member 15 July, 2014 - 07:07 MHK Cost Breakdown Structure Draft CBS current energy GMREC LCOE levelized cost of...

  11. Clean Air Interstate Rule: Changes and Modeling in AEO2010 (released in AEO2010)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2010-01-01

    On December 23, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court remanded but did not vacate the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), overriding its previous decision on February 8, 2008, to remand and vacate CAIR. The December decision, which is reflected in Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO) , allows CAIR to remain in effect, providing time for the Environmental Protection Agency to modify the rule in order to address objections raised by the Court in its earlier decision. A similar rule, referred to as the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which was to set up a cap-and-trade system for reducing mercury emissions by approximately 70%, is not represented in the AEO2010 projections, because it was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court in February 2008.

  12. AEO2011:Total Energy Supply, Disposition, and Price Summary ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    case. The dataset uses quadrillion Btu and the U.S. Dollar. The data is broken down into production, imports, exports, consumption and price. Data and Resources AEO2011:Total...

  13. AEO2011: Energy Consumption by Sector and Source - Mountain ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    comes from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), and is part of the 2011 Annual Energy Outlook Report (AEO2011). This dataset is table 8, and contains only the reference...

  14. Summary of First AEO2015 Electricity Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    The presentation included a discussion of regulations, centered on AEO2015 updates to include the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (if the D.C. Circuit Court lifts the stay on the ...

  15. EPACT2005: Status of Provisions (Update) (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    The Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPACT) was signed into law by President Bush on August 8, 2005, and became Public Law 109-058. A number of provisions from EPACT2005 were included in the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO) projections. Many others were not considered in AEO2006particularly, those that require funding appropriations or further specification by federal agencies or Congress before implementation.

  16. Summary of Second AEO 2015 Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    November 7, 2014 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Paul Holtberg Team Leader Analysis Integration Team FROM: Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis SUBJECT: Summary of Second AEO 2015 Working Group Meeting held on September 15, 2014 ATTENDEES: 21 EIA, 68 external (list provided following meeting summary) Presentation topics included a review of the AEO2015 publication schedule and contents, an overview of model assumptions updates in

  17. Levelized Cost of Energy: A Parametric Study

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Even if all other variables are held constant, the annual energy yield (kWhkW p ) will vary among module technologies because of differences in response to low-light levels and ...

  18. California's Move Toward E10 (released in AEO2009)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2009-01-01

    In Annual Energy Outlook 2009, (AEO) E10a gasoline blend containing 10% ethanolis assumed to be the maximum ethanol blend allowed in California erformulated gasoline (RFG), as opposed to the 5.7% blend assumed in earlier AEOs. The 5.7% blend had reflected decisions made when California decided to phase out use of the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether in its RFG program in 2003, opting instead to use ethanol in the minimum amount that would meet the requirement for 2.0% oxygen content under the Clean Air Act provisions in effect at that time.

  19. Manufacturing Cost Levelization Model – A User’s Guide

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Morrow, William R.; Shehabi, Arman; Smith, Sarah Josephine

    2015-08-01

    The Manufacturing Cost Levelization Model is a cost-performance techno-economic model that estimates total large-scale manufacturing costs for necessary to produce a given product. It is designed to provide production cost estimates for technology researchers to help guide technology research and development towards an eventual cost-effective product. The model presented in this user’s guide is generic and can be tailored to the manufacturing of any product, including the generation of electricity (as a product). This flexibility, however, requires the user to develop the processes and process efficiencies that represents a full-scale manufacturing facility. The generic model is comprised of several modules that estimate variable costs (material, labor, and operating), fixed costs (capital & maintenance), financing structures (debt and equity financing), and tax implications (taxable income after equipment and building depreciation, debt interest payments, and expenses) of a notional manufacturing plant. A cash-flow method is used to estimate a selling price necessary for the manufacturing plant to recover its total cost of production. A levelized unit sales price ($ per unit of product) is determined by dividing the net-present value of the manufacturing plant’s expenses ($) by the net present value of its product output. A user defined production schedule drives the cash-flow method that determines the levelized unit price. In addition, an analyst can increase the levelized unit price to include a gross profit margin to estimate a product sales price. This model allows an analyst to understand the effect that any input variables could have on the cost of manufacturing a product. In addition, the tool is able to perform sensitivity analysis, which can be used to identify the key variables and assumptions that have the greatest influence on the levelized costs. This component is intended to help technology researchers focus their research attention on tasks

  20. State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals: Update Through 2007 (Update) (released in AEO2008)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2008-01-01

    In recent years, the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) has tracked the growing number of states that have adopted requirements or goals for renewable energy. While there is no federal renewable generation mandate, the states have been adopting such standards for some time. AEO2005 provided a summary of all existing programs in effect at that time, and subsequent AEOs have examined new policies or changes to existing ones. Since the publication of AEO2007, four states have enacted new renewable portfolio standards (RPS) legislation, and five others have strengthened their existing RPS programs. In total, 25 states and the District of Columbia.

  1. Microsoft Word - AEO2012 SENR final markup 1 31 12 _2_.docx

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    nonpetroleum liquids, net petroleum imports make up a smaller share of total liquids consumption: U.S. dependence on imported petroleum liquids declines in the AEO2012 Reference...

  2. Levelized Cost of Coating (LCOC) for selective absorber materials

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Ho, Clifford K.; Pacheco, James E.

    2014-08-08

    A new metric has been developed to evaluate and compare selective absorber coatings for concentrating solar power applications. Previous metrics have typically considered the performance of the selective coating (i.e., solar absorptance and thermal emittance), but cost and durability were not considered. This report describes the development of the levelized cost of coating (LCOC), which is similar to the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) commonly used to evaluate alternative energy technologies. The LCOC is defined as the ratio of the annualized cost of the coating (and associated costs such as labor and number of heliostats required) to the average annualmore » thermal energy produced by the receiver. The baseline LCOC using Pyromark 2500 paint was found to be %240.055/MWht, and the distribution of LCOC values relative to this baseline were determined in a probabilistic analysis to range from -%241.6/MWht to %247.3/MWht, accounting for the cost of additional (or fewer) heliostats required to yield the same baseline average annual thermal energy produced by the receiver. A stepwise multiple rank regression analysis showed that the initial solar absorptance was the most significant parameter impacting the LCOC, followed by thermal emittance, degradation rate, reapplication interval, and downtime during reapplication.« less

  3. Levelized Cost of Coating (LCOC) for selective absorber materials

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ho, Clifford K.; Pacheco, James E.

    2014-08-08

    A new metric has been developed to evaluate and compare selective absorber coatings for concentrating solar power applications. Previous metrics have typically considered the performance of the selective coating (i.e., solar absorptance and thermal emittance), but cost and durability were not considered. This report describes the development of the levelized cost of coating (LCOC), which is similar to the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) commonly used to evaluate alternative energy technologies. The LCOC is defined as the ratio of the annualized cost of the coating (and associated costs such as labor and number of heliostats required) to the average annual thermal energy produced by the receiver. The baseline LCOC using Pyromark 2500 paint was found to be %240.055/MWht, and the distribution of LCOC values relative to this baseline were determined in a probabilistic analysis to range from -%241.6/MWht to %247.3/MWht, accounting for the cost of additional (or fewer) heliostats required to yield the same baseline average annual thermal energy produced by the receiver. A stepwise multiple rank regression analysis showed that the initial solar absorptance was the most significant parameter impacting the LCOC, followed by thermal emittance, degradation rate, reapplication interval, and downtime during reapplication.

  4. Federal Fuels Taxes and Tax Credits (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    The Annual Energy Outlook 2007 (AEO) reference case and alternative cases generally assume compliance with current laws and regulations affecting the energy sector. Some provisions of the U.S. Tax Code are scheduled to expire, or may be subject to adjustment, before the end of the projection period. In general, scheduled expirations and adjustments provided in legislation or regulations are assumed to occur, unless there is significant historical evidence to support an alternative assumption. This section examines the AEO2007 treatment of three provisions that could have significant impacts on U.S. energy markets: the gasoline excise tax, biofuel (ethanol and biodiesel) tax credits, and the production tax credit for electricity generation from certain renewable resources.

  5. AEO 2013 Liquid Fuels Markets Working Group 2

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2 October 4, 2012 Attendance (In Person) Beth May, Mike Cole, Arup Mallik, Vish Mantri, Irene Olson, Julie Harris, Michael Schaal, Andy Kydes, Tom White, Adrian Geagla, Jennifer Li. Attendance (WebEx) Mac Statton, Dave Schmalzer, Jarrod Brown, John Prydol, Russ Smith, Rodney Geisbrecht, Dallas Burkholder, Kristen King Notes by Slide Slide 2 The reference case in 2013 has a lower oil price compared to last year's AEO out to 2040. Slide 10 - Includes modeling of pyrolysis oils Slide 11 - This

  6. AEO 2014 Renewable Electricity Working Group Meeting Summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    DATE: September 30, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Office of Energy Analysis Alan Beamon Office Director Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis FROM: Renewable Electricity Analysis Team SUBJECT: AEO 2014 Renewable Electricity Working Group Meeting Summary ATTENDEES: In person John Conti Alan Beamon Bob Eynon Chris Namovicz Danielle Lowenthal-Savy Erin Boedecker Gwen Bredehoeft Jim Diefenderfer Marie Rinkoski Spangler Michael

  7. AEO2014 Coal Working Group Meeting I Summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    July 22, 2013 MEMORANDUM TO: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Alan Beamon Director, Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis FROM: Coal and Uranium Analysis Team SUBJECT: AEO2014 Coal Working Group Meeting I Summary Attendees (41) Name Affiliation Greg Adams (Moderator) US DOE: EIA Vlad Dorjets Bob Eynon Karen Freedman Tyler Hodge Paul Holtberg Elias Johnson Ayaka Jones Diane Kearney Mike Leff Mike Mellish Carrie Milton Nick Paduano Margaret Cook US

  8. AEO2014 Liquid Fuels Markets Working Group Meeting 1

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2 AEO2014 Liquid Fuels Markets Working Group Meeting 1 July 24, 2013 Attendance (In Person) (EIA) John Powell, Mindi Farber-DeAnda, Mike Cole, Beth May, Adrian Geagla, Vish Mantri, Tony Radich, Irene Olson, Julie Harris (non-EIA) Jeff Meyer (HIS CERA, Oil Market Analyst), Adam Christensen (Johns Hopkin) Attendance (WebEx) Dave Schmalzer, Seth Snyder (Argonne National Laboratory), Donald Hanson (Argonne National Laboratory), Wyatt Thompson (FAPRI, University of Missouri), Jarrett Whistance

  9. AEO2014 Oil and Gas Working Group Meeting Summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    9 August 12, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN CONTI ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENERGY ANALYSIS FROM: ANGELINA LAROSE TEAM LEAD NATURAL GAS MARKETS TEAM JOHN STAUB TEAM LEAD EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION ANALYSIS TEAM EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION and NATURAL GAS MARKETS TEAMS SUBJECT: First AEO2014 Oil and Gas Working Group Meeting Summary (presented on July 25, 2013) Attendees: Anas Alhajji (NGP)* Samuel Andrus (IHS)* Emil Attanasi (USGS)* Andre Barbe (Rice University) David J. Barden (self) Joseph

  10. AEO2015 Liquid Fuels Markets Working Group Presentation

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Assumptions for Annual Energy Outlook 2015: Liquid Fuels Markets Working Group AEO2015 Liquid Fuels Markets Working Group Meeting Office of Petroleum, Natural Gas & Biofuels Analysis July 17, 2014 | Washington, DC WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE Discussion topics Office of Petroleum, Natural Gas, & Biofuels Analysis Working Group Presentation for Discussion Purposes Washington DC, July 17, 2014 DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE

  11. Second AEO2014 Liquids Fuels Markets Working Group Meeting Summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    5, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN CONTI ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENERGY ANALYSIS JOHN POWELL TEAM LEADER LIQUID FUELS MARKET TEAM MICHAEL SCHAAL DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ENERGY ANALYSIS FROM: LIQUID FUELS MARKET TEAM SUBJECT: Second AEO2014 Liquid Fuels Markets Working Group Meeting Summary (presented on 09-19-2013) Attendees: (EIA) John Powell, Mindi Farber-DeAnda, Mike Cole, Beth May, Adrian Geagla, Vishakh Mantri, Tony Radich, Irene Olson, Julie Harris, Arup Mallik, Mike Bredehoeft Seth Meyer (USDA)

  12. Second AEO2014 Macro-Industrial Working Group Meeting Summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN CONTI ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENERGY ANALYSIS PAUL HOLTBERG TEAM LEADER ANALYSIS INTEGRATION TEAM JAMES TURNURE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION & EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS LYNN WESTFALL DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ENERGY MARKETS & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FROM: MACROECONOMIC & INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION & EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS TEAMS SUBJECT: Second AEO2014 Macro-Industrial Working Group Meeting Summary (presented on 09-26-2013) Attendees: Bob Adler (EIA) Robert

  13. Second AEO2014 Oil and Gas Working Group Meeting Summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7 November 12, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN CONTI ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENERGY ANALYSIS FROM: ANGELINA LAROSE TEAM LEAD NATURAL GAS MARKETS TEAM JOHN STAUB TEAM LEAD EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION ANALYSIS TEAM EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION and NATURAL GAS MARKETS TEAMS SUBJECT: Second AEO2014 Oil and Gas Working Group Meeting Summary (presented September 26, 2013) Attendees: Robert Anderson (DOE) Peter Balash (NETL)* David Bardin (self) Joe Benneche (EIA) Philip Budzik (EIA) Kara Callahan

  14. Second AEO2014 Transportation Working Group Meeting Summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    , 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN CONTI ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENERGY ANALYSIS PAUL HOLTBERG TEAM LEADER ANALYSIS INTEGRATION TEAM JIM TURNURE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS FROM: TRANSPORTATION CONSUMPTION & EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS TEAM SUBJECT: Second AEO2014 Transportation Working Group Meeting Summary (presented on 09-25-2013) Attendees: Nicholas Chase (EIA/OECEA) Carrie Hughes-Cromwick (EIA/OES) Paul Holtberg (EIA/OEA) Trisha Hutchins (EIA/OECEA) Jim Kliesch

  15. Second AEO2016 Buildings Sector Workingb Group Meeting Summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE June 10, 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Paul Holtberg Team Leader, Analysis Integration Team James Turnure Director, Office of Energy Consumption & Efficiency Analysis FROM: Buildings Consumption & Efficiency Analysis Team Subject: Second AEO2016 Buildings Sector Working Group Meeting Summary, workshop held on February 18, 2016

  16. Second AEO2016 Macro-Induistrial Working Group Meeting summary

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    March 21, 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN CONTI ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENERGY ANALYSIS PAUL HOLTBERG TEAM LEADER ANALYSIS INTEGRATION TEAM JAMES TURNURE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION & EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS LYNN WESTFALL DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ENERGY MARKETS & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FROM: MACROECONOMIC & INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION & EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS TEAMS SUBJECT: Second AEO2016 Macro-Industrial Working Group Meeting Summary, presented on 02-18-2016 Attendees: Nate Aden

  17. Summary of AEO2015 Renewable Electricity Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE February 29, 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Jim Diefenderfer Office Director Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis Paul Holtberg Team Leader Analysis Integration Team FROM: Renewable Electricity Analysis Team SUBJECT: Summary of AEO2015 Renewable Electricity Working Group Meeting held on February 9, 2016 Presenter: Chris

  18. Summary of AEO2016 Electricity Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS RESULTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE February 10, 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Jim Diefenderfer Office Director Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis Paul Holtberg Team Leader Analysis Integration Team FROM: Chris Namovicz Acting Team Leader for Electricity Analysis Team SUBJECT: Summary of AEO2016 Electricity Working Group Meeting held on February 10, 2016

  19. Summary of First AEO2014 Electricity Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    9, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Alan Beamon Office Director Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis Paul Holtberg Team Leader Analysis Integration Team FROM: Electricity Analysis Team SUBJECT: Summary of First AEO 2014 Electricity Working Group Meeting held on July 24, 2013 ATTENDEES: Diefenderfer, Jim Aniti, Lori Milton, Carrie Jones, Jeff Martin, Laura Bredehoeft, Gwendolyn Eynon, Bob Leff, Mike Mellish, Mike Kearney, Diane

  20. Summary of Second AEO 2014 Electricity Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Alan Beamon Office Director Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis Paul Holtberg Team Leader Analysis Integration Team FROM: Electricity Analysis Team SUBJECT: Summary of Second AEO 2014 Electricity Working Group Meeting held on September 25, 2013 ATTENDEES: Adams, Greg (EIA OEA) Aniti, Lori (EIA OEA) Bredehoeft, Gwendolyn (EIA OEA) Crozat, Matthew P. (US DOE: Office of Nuclear Energy)

  1. Comparison of AEO 2009 Natural Gas Price Forecast to NYMEX Futures Prices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan

    2009-01-28

    On December 17, 2008, the reference-case projections from Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (AEO 2009) were posted on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) web site. We at LBNL have, in the past, compared the EIA's reference-case long-term natural gas price forecasts from the AEO series to contemporaneous natural gas prices that can be locked in through the forward market, with the goal of better understanding fuel price risk and the role that renewables can play in mitigating such risk. As such, we were curious to see how the latest AEO reference-case gas price forecast compares to the NYMEX natural gas futures strip. This brief memo presents our findings. Note that this memo pertains only to natural gas fuel price risk (i.e., the risk that natural gas prices might differ over the life of a gas-fired generation asset from what was expected when the decision to build the gas-fired unit was made). We do not take into consideration any of the other distinct attributes of gas-fired and renewable generation, such as dispatchability (or lack thereof), differences in capital costs and O&M expenses, or environmental externalities. A comprehensive comparison of different resource types--which is well beyond the scope of this memo--would need to account for differences in all such attributes, including fuel price risk. Furthermore, our analysis focuses solely on natural-gas-fired generation (as opposed to coal-fired or nuclear generation, for example), for several reasons: (1) price volatility has been more of a concern for natural gas than for other fuels used to generate power; (2) for environmental and other reasons, natural gas has, in recent years, been the fuel of choice among power plant developers; and (3) natural gas-fired generators often set the market clearing price in competitive wholesale power markets throughout the United States. That said, a more-complete analysis of how renewables mitigate fuel price risk would also need to consider coal, uranium, and

  2. Federal Fuels Taxes and Tax Credits (Update) (released in AEO2008)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2008-01-01

    The Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO) reference case incorporates current regulations that pertain to the energy industry. This section describes the handling of federal taxes and tax credits in AEO2008, focusing primarily on areas where regulations have changed or the handling of taxes or tax credits has been updated.

  3. CONTINATION HEETIREFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO COTIUTINSHE DE-AC27-08RV14800/044 2AG OF NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR WASHINGTON RIVER PROTECTION SOLUTIONS LLC ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Account code: ARRA Appr Year 2009 Allottee 3 Reporting Entity 421301 Object Class 31003 Program 11113 70 Project 2002110 WFO 0000000 Local Use 0420660 TAS Agency Code 89 TAS Account Code 0253 TAS Subaccount Code Amount: -$100,000.00 Delivery Location Code: 010601 Richland

  4. CONTINATION HEETIREFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO COTIUAIN IET DE-AC27--08RV14800/046 2G OF NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR WASHINGTON RIVER PROTECTION SOLUTIONS LLC ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) ORP-00014 TOO Funds Fund 01250 Appr Year 2010 Allottee 34 Reportng Enity 4231.11 Object Class 25200 Program 1111412 Project 0004262 WFO 0000000 Local Use 0000000 Amount: $1,200,000.00 ORP 0014 TOO Fund 01250 AppL Ye~ir 2010 Reporting Entity 421301 Object Class 25200

  5. CONTINATION HEETIREFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO COTIUAIN HETDE-AC27-08RV14800/052 2A OF NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR WASHINGTON RIVER PROTECTION SOLUTIONS LLC ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNITI UNIT PRICE AMOUNT (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Fund 01250 Appr Year 2010 Allottee 34 Reporting Entity 421301 Object Class 25200 Program 1110462 Project 0001539 WFO 0000000 Local Use 0420149 Amount: $10,214.00 Delivery Location Code: 00601 RichandOperations Office U.S Dep~artment of Energy Richland Operations

  6. CONTINUATION S EFIIERENCE NO OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    CONTINUATION S EFIIERENCE NO OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO CONINUTIO SHETDE-AC27-08RV148OO/095 rG NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR WASH-INGTON RIVER PROTECTION SOLUTIONS LLC- ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT (A) (B) (C) (D) )/F New Total Amount for this Award: $7,094,451,000.00 Obligated Amount for this Modification: $30, 952, 500.00 New Total Obligated Amount for this Award: $1, 353,766,560.39 Incremental Funded Amount changed: from $1,293,125,180.69 to $1,323,766,560.39

  7. CONTINUATON SHEETREFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    CONTINUATON SHEETREFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO COTNUTO SETDE-AC27-08RV14800/070 2AG OF NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR WASHINGTON RIVER PROTECTION SOLUTIONS LLC ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) De-obligating WEPS TDD funds for ATL Aluminum Solubility Sample Analysis Fund 01250 Appr Year 2009 Allottee 34 Reporting Entity 421301 Object Class 25200 Program 1110676 Project 0004022 WFO 0000000 Local Use 0000000 Amount: -$3,155.93

  8. CONTIUATIN SHET IREFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    CONTIUATIN SHET IREFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO COTNUTO SETDE-AC27-08RVI4800/055 2AG OF NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR WASHINGTON RIVER PROTECTION SOLUTIONS LLC ITEM NO. SUPPLIESISERVICES QUANTITY NIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Total Amount changed from $7,066,503,000.00 to $7,066,500,000.00 Obligated Amount for this modification: $140, 000.00 Incremental Funded Amount changed from $1,102, 822,315.05 to $1,102,962,315.05 NEW ACCOUNTING CODE ADDED: Account code: WTP

  9. Table 3a. Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil, Projected vs. Actual

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    a. Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected Price in Constant Dollars" " (constant dollars per barrel in ""dollar year"" specific to each AEO)" ,"AEO $ Year",1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",1992,16.69,16.42999,16.9899,17.66,18.28,19.0599,19.89,20.72,21.65,22.61,23.51,24.29,24.9,25.6,26.3,27,27.64,28.16

  10. AEO Early Release 2013 - renewable generation

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Renewables account for a bigger share of U.S. electricity generation in decades ahead The United States will generate a bigger share of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind, and biomass energy in the decades ahead, according to the new long-term outlook just released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. EIA says that lower costs are making renewable electricity more economical, and along with federal and state policies that promote renewables, EIA projects that

  11. Lighting system replacement brings energy costs down, light levels up

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Radmer, D.J.

    1984-11-08

    The R.J. Frisby Mfg. Co. operates on three shifts and produces precision screw machine products for a variety of industries, including automotive, marine, machine tool, hydraulics and pneumatics, business machines, electrical and electronics, photography, and precision instruments. The required degree of manufacturing precision demands high light levels in manufacturing areas. When the 100,000 sq ft plant was built in 1973, mercury vapor lighting was installed consistent with the current state of the art for lighting such facilities. In the ensuing years, it became apparent that the soaring electric bills that came in the wake of the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 would have to be controlled. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy indicated that electric energy costs were likely to rise by 160 percent over the next 10 yr. Based on this estimate, and the fact that lighting accounted for $70,000, or half of the annual electric bill, it was estimated that $900,000 to $1,000,000 would be spent for lighting energy over the next decade. The concern over the probability of rapidly escalating electrical costs was soon justified when, in three steps over one 12 mo period, the electric energy rate increased from $0.0305/kwh to $0.0416/kwh -more than a 36 percent increase. During that same period, the demand charge was raised in two steps from $3.75/kw to $4.85/kw --more than a 29 percent increase.

  12. Levelized cost of energy for a Backward Bent Duct Buoy

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Bull, Diana; Jenne, D. Scott; Smith, Christopher S.; Copping, Andrea E.; Copeland, Guild

    2016-07-18

    The Reference Model Project, supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, was developed to provide publicly available technical and economic benchmarks for a variety of marine energy converters. The methodology to achieve these benchmarks is to develop public domain designs that incorporate power performance estimates, structural models, anchor and mooring designs, power conversion chain designs, and estimates of the operations and maintenance, installation, and environmental permitting required. The reference model designs are intended to be conservative, robust, and experimentally verified. The Backward Bent Duct Buoy (BBDB) presented in this paper is one of three wave energy conversion devices studied withinmore » the Reference Model Project. Furthermore, comprehensive modeling of the BBDB in a Northern California climate has enabled a full levelized cost of energy (LCOE) analysis to be completed on this device.« less

  13. AEO2014 - Issues in Focus articles - U.S. Energy Information...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Past AEO analyses that remain relevant 2013 2012 2011 U.S. reliance on imported liquid fuels in alternative scenarios Competition between coal and natural gas in the electric...

  14. Energy Demand (released in AEO2010)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2010-01-01

    Growth in U.S. energy use is linked to population growth through increases in demand for housing, commercial floorspace, transportation, manufacturing, and services. This affects not only the level of energy use, but also the mix of fuels and consumption by sector.

  15. Transparent Cost Database for Generation at Regional Level? ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    cost of electricity generation using different technologies. I think at all these data are national averages, however. I was wondering if such data was available at...

  16. Table 3a. Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil, Projected vs. Actual

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    a. Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil, Projected vs. Actual Projected Price in Constant Dollars (constant dollars per barrel in "dollar year" specific to each AEO) AEO $ Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 1992 16.69 16.43 16.99 17.66 18.28 19.06 19.89 20.72 21.65 22.61 23.51 24.29 24.90 25.60 26.30 27.00 27.64 28.16 AEO 1995 1993 14.90 16.41 16.90 17.45 18.00 18.53 19.13 19.65 20.16 20.63

  17. Changing Trends in the Bulk Chemicals and Pulp and Paper Industries (released in AEO2005)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2005-01-01

    Compared with the experience of the 1990s, rising energy prices in recent years have led to questions about expectations of growth in industrial output, particularly in energy-intensive industries. Given the higher price trends, a review of expected growth trends in selected industries was undertaken as part of the production of Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO). In addition, projections for the industrial value of shipments, which were based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system in AEO2004, are based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) in AEO2005. The change in industrial classification leads to lower historical growth rates for many industrial sectors. The impacts of these two changes are highlighted in this section for two of the largest energy-consuming industries in the U.S. industrial sector-bulk chemicals and pulp and paper.

  18. Natural Gas Prices Forecast Comparison--AEO vs. Natural Gas Markets

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wong-Parodi, Gabrielle; Lekov, Alex; Dale, Larry

    2005-02-09

    This paper evaluates the accuracy of two methods to forecast natural gas prices: using the Energy Information Administration's ''Annual Energy Outlook'' forecasted price (AEO) and the ''Henry Hub'' compared to U.S. Wellhead futures price. A statistical analysis is performed to determine the relative accuracy of the two measures in the recent past. A statistical analysis suggests that the Henry Hub futures price provides a more accurate average forecast of natural gas prices than the AEO. For example, the Henry Hub futures price underestimated the natural gas price by 35 cents per thousand cubic feet (11.5 percent) between 1996 and 2003 and the AEO underestimated by 71 cents per thousand cubic feet (23.4 percent). Upon closer inspection, a liner regression analysis reveals that two distinct time periods exist, the period between 1996 to 1999 and the period between 2000 to 2003. For the time period between 1996 to 1999, AEO showed a weak negative correlation (R-square = 0.19) between forecast price by actual U.S. Wellhead natural gas price versus the Henry Hub with a weak positive correlation (R-square = 0.20) between forecasted price and U.S. Wellhead natural gas price. During the time period between 2000 to 2003, AEO shows a moderate positive correlation (R-square = 0.37) between forecasted natural gas price and U.S. Wellhead natural gas price versus the Henry Hub that show a moderate positive correlation (R-square = 0.36) between forecast price and U.S. Wellhead natural gas price. These results suggest that agencies forecasting natural gas prices should consider incorporating the Henry Hub natural gas futures price into their forecasting models along with the AEO forecast. Our analysis is very preliminary and is based on a very small data set. Naturally the results of the analysis may change, as more data is made available.

  19. Comparison of AEO 2010 Natural Gas Price Forecast to NYMEX Futures Prices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark A.; Wiser, Ryan H.

    2010-01-04

    On December 14, 2009, the reference-case projections from Annual Energy Outlook 2010 were posted on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) web site. We at LBNL have, in the past, compared the EIA's reference-case long-term natural gas price forecasts from the AEO series to contemporaneous natural gas prices that can be locked in through the forward market, with the goal of better understanding fuel price risk and the role that renewables can play in itigating such risk. As such, we were curious to see how the latest AEO reference-case gas price forecast compares to the NYMEX natural gas futures strip. This brief memo presents our findings.

  20. Waste Management Facilities cost information for mixed low-level waste. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shropshire, D.; Sherick, M.; Biadgi, C.

    1995-06-01

    This report contains preconceptual designs and planning level life-cycle cost estimates for managing mixed low-level waste. The report`s information on treatment, storage, and disposal modules can be integrated to develop total life-cycle costs for various waste management options. A procedure to guide the US Department of Energy and its contractor personnel in the use of cost estimation data is also summarized in this report.

  1. World Oil Price Cases (released in AEO2005)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2005-01-01

    World oil prices in Annual Energy Outlook 2005 are set in an environment where the members of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) are assumed to act as the dominant producers, with lower production costs than other supply regions or countries. Non-OPEC oil producers are assumed to behave competitively, producing as much oil as they can profitability extract at the market price for oil. As a result, the OPEC member countries will be able effectively to set the price of oil when they can act in concert by varying their aggregate production. Alternatively, OPEC members could target a fixed level of production and let the world market determine the price.

  2. Derivation of a Levelized Cost of Coating (LCOC) metric for evaluation of solar selective absorber materials

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ho, C. K.; Pacheco, J. E.

    2015-06-05

    A new metric, the Levelized Cost of Coating (LCOC), is derived in this paper to evaluate and compare alternative solar selective absorber coatings against a baseline coating (Pyromark 2500). In contrast to previous metrics that focused only on the optical performance of the coating, the LCOC includes costs, durability, and optical performance for more comprehensive comparisons among candidate materials. The LCOC is defined as the annualized marginal cost of the coating to produce a baseline annual thermal energy production. Costs include the cost of materials and labor for initial application and reapplication of the coating, as well as the cost of additional or fewer heliostats to yield the same annual thermal energy production as the baseline coating. Results show that important factors impacting the LCOC include the initial solar absorptance, thermal emittance, reapplication interval, degradation rate, reapplication cost, and downtime during reapplication. The LCOC can also be used to determine the optimal reapplication interval to minimize the levelized cost of energy production. As a result, similar methods can be applied more generally to determine the levelized cost of component for other applications and systems.

  3. Interim report: Waste management facilities cost information for mixed low-level waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Feizollahi, F.; Shropshire, D.

    1994-03-01

    This report contains preconceptual designs and planning level life-cycle cost estimates for treating alpha and nonalpha mixed low-level radioactive waste. This report contains information on twenty-seven treatment, storage, and disposal modules that can be integrated to develop total life cycle costs for various waste management options. A procedure to guide the US Department of Energy and its contractor personnel in the use of estimating data is also summarized in this report.

  4. Operating cost guidelines for benchmarking DOE thermal treatment systems for low-level mixed waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Salmon, R.; Loghry, S.L.; Hermes, W.H.

    1994-11-01

    This report presents guidelines for estimating operating costs for use in benchmarking US Department of Energy (DOE) low-level mixed waste thermal treatment systems. The guidelines are based on operating cost experience at the DOE Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) mixed waste incinerator at the K-25 Site at Oak Ridge. In presenting these guidelines, it should be made clear at the outset that it is not the intention of this report to present operating cost estimates for new technologies, but only guidelines for estimating such costs.

  5. Derivation of a Levelized Cost of Coating (LCOC) metric for evaluation of solar selective absorber materials

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Ho, C. K.; Pacheco, J. E.

    2015-06-05

    A new metric, the Levelized Cost of Coating (LCOC), is derived in this paper to evaluate and compare alternative solar selective absorber coatings against a baseline coating (Pyromark 2500). In contrast to previous metrics that focused only on the optical performance of the coating, the LCOC includes costs, durability, and optical performance for more comprehensive comparisons among candidate materials. The LCOC is defined as the annualized marginal cost of the coating to produce a baseline annual thermal energy production. Costs include the cost of materials and labor for initial application and reapplication of the coating, as well as the costmore » of additional or fewer heliostats to yield the same annual thermal energy production as the baseline coating. Results show that important factors impacting the LCOC include the initial solar absorptance, thermal emittance, reapplication interval, degradation rate, reapplication cost, and downtime during reapplication. The LCOC can also be used to determine the optimal reapplication interval to minimize the levelized cost of energy production. As a result, similar methods can be applied more generally to determine the levelized cost of component for other applications and systems.« less

  6. A Survey of State-Level Cost and Benefit Estimates of Renewable Portfolio Standards

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    This report surveys and summarizes existing state-level RPS cost and benefit estimates and examines the various methods used to calculate such estimates. The report relies largely upon data or results reported directly by electric utilities and state regulators. As such, the estimated costs and benefits itemized in this document do not result from the application of a standardized approach or the use of a consistent set of underlying assumptions. Because the reported values may differ from those derived through a more consistent analytical treatment, we do not provide an aggregate national estimate of RPS costs and benefits, nor do we attempt to quantify net RPS benefits at national or state levels.

  7. Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline Developments (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    The Annual Energy Outlook 2007 reference case projects that an Alaska natural gas pipeline will go into operation in 2018, based on the Energy Information Administration's current understanding of the projects time line and economics. There is continuing debate, however, about the physical configuration and the ownership of the pipeline. In addition, the issue of Alaskas oil and natural gas production taxes has been raised, in the context of a current market environment characterized by rising construction costs and falling natural gas prices. If rates of return on investment by producers are reduced to unacceptable levels, or if the project faces significant delays, other sources of natural gas, such as unconventional natural gas production and liquefied natural gas imports, could fulfill the demand that otherwise would be served by an Alaska pipeline.

  8. Survey of State-Level Cost and Benefit Estimates of Renewable Portfolio Standards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Heeter, J.; Barbose, G.; Bird, L.; Weaver, S.; Flores-Espino, F.; Kuskova-Burns, K.; Wiser, R.

    2014-05-01

    Most renewable portfolio standards (RPS) have five or more years of implementation experience, enabling an assessment of their costs and benefits. Understanding RPS costs and benefits is essential for policymakers evaluating existing RPS policies, assessing the need for modifications, and considering new policies. This study provides an overview of methods used to estimate RPS compliance costs and benefits, based on available data and estimates issued by utilities and regulators. Over the 2010-2012 period, average incremental RPS compliance costs in the United States were equivalent to 0.8% of retail electricity rates, although substantial variation exists around this average, both from year-to-year and across states. The methods used by utilities and regulators to estimate incremental compliance costs vary considerably from state to state and a number of states are currently engaged in processes to refine and standardize their approaches to RPS cost calculation. The report finds that state assessments of RPS benefits have most commonly attempted to quantitatively assess avoided emissions and human health benefits, economic development impacts, and wholesale electricity price savings. Compared to the summary of RPS costs, the summary of RPS benefits is more limited, as relatively few states have undertaken detailed benefits estimates, and then only for a few types of potential policy impacts. In some cases, the same impacts may be captured in the assessment of incremental costs. For these reasons, and because methodologies and level of rigor vary widely, direct comparisons between the estimates of benefits and costs are challenging.

  9. WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS AEO2016

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    February 1, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Jim Diefenderfer Director, Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis FROM: Coal and Uranium Analysis Team SUBJECT: Notes from the First AEO2016 Coal Working Group Meeting workshop held on December 1, 2015 Attendees (47) Name Affiliation Ross, Joey Alliance Resource Partners, L.P. Alfaro, Jose L. Alpha Natural Resources Blumenfeld, Andy Arch Coal, Inc. Lewandowski, David Clean Energy James,

  10. WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES. DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE AS AEO2016

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    March 10, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Jim Diefenderfer Director, Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis FROM: Coal and Uranium Analysis Team SUBJECT: Notes from the Second AEO2016 Coal Working Group Meeting workshop held on February 9, 2016 Attendees (30) Name Affiliation Adams, Greg U.S. DOE: EIA Coleman, Leslie National Mining Association Diefenderfer, Jim U.S. DOE: EIA DiGiantommaso, Jennifer U.S. Department of Labor

  11. Summary of AEO2016 Electricity Working Group Meeting held on December 8, 2015

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    January7, 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR: John Conti Assistant Administrator for Energy Analysis Jim Diefenderfer Director, Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear, and Renewables Analysis Paul Holtberg Team Leader Analysis Integration Team Office of Integrated and International Energy Analysis FROM: Chris Namovicz Team Leader for Electricity Analysis (acting) And Thad Huetteman, Electricity Analysis Team SUBJECT: Summary of AEO2016 Electricity Working Group Meeting held on December 8, 2015 Presenters: Chris

  12. Estimating costs of low-level radioactive waste disposal alternatives for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-02-01

    This report was prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, National Low-Level Waste Management Program. It presents planning life-cycle cost (PLCC) estimates for four sizes of in-state low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facilities. These PLCC estimates include preoperational and operational expenditures, all support facilities, materials, labor, closure costs, and long-term institutional care and monitoring costs. It is intended that this report bc used as a broad decision making tool for evaluating one of the several complex factors that must be examined when deciding between various LLRW management options -- relative costs. Because the underlying assumptions of these analyses will change as the Board decides how it will manage Massachusett`s waste and the specific characteristics any disposal facility will have, the results of this study are not absolute and should only be used to compare the relative costs of the options presented. The disposal technology selected for this analysis is aboveground earth-mounded vaults. These vaults are reinforced concrete structures where low-level waste is emplaced and later covered with a multi-layered earthen cap. The ``base case`` PLCC estimate was derived from a preliminary feasibility design developed for the Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. This PLCC report describes facility operations and details the procedure used to develop the base case PLCC estimate for each facility component and size. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the base case PLCC estimate by varying several factors to determine their influences upon the unit disposal costs. The report presents the results of the sensitivity analyses for the five most significant cost factors.

  13. Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) metric to characterize solar absorber coatings for the CSP industry

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boubault, Antoine; Ho, Clifford K.; Hall, Aaron; Lambert, Timothy N.; Ambrosini, Andrea

    2015-07-08

    The contribution of each component of a power generation plant to the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) can be estimated and used to increase the power output while reducing system operation and maintenance costs. The LCOE is used in order to quantify solar receiver coating influence on the LCOE of solar power towers. Two new parameters are introduced: the absolute levelized cost of coating (LCOC) and the LCOC efficiency. Depending on the material properties, aging, costs, and temperature, the absolute LCOC enables quantifying the cost-effectiveness of absorber coatings, as well as finding optimal operating conditions. The absolute LCOC is investigated for different hypothetic coatings and is demonstrated on Pyromark 2500 paint. Results show that absorber coatings yield lower LCOE values in most cases, even at significant costs. Optimal reapplication intervals range from one to five years. At receiver temperatures greater than 700 C, non-selective coatings are not always worthwhile while durable selective coatings consistently reduce the LCOEup to 12% of the value obtained for an uncoated receiver. Moreover the absolute LCOC is a powerful tool to characterize and compare different coatings, not only considering their initial efficiencies but also including their durability.

  14. Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) metric to characterize solar absorber coatings for the CSP industry

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boubault, Antoine; Ho, Clifford K.; Hall, Aaron; Lambert, Timothy N.; Ambrosini, Andrea

    2015-07-08

    The contribution of each component of a power generation plant to the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) can be estimated and used to increase the power output while reducing system operation and maintenance costs. The LCOE is used in order to quantify solar receiver coating influence on the LCOE of solar power towers. Two new parameters are introduced: the absolute levelized cost of coating (LCOC) and the LCOC efficiency. Depending on the material properties, aging, costs, and temperature, the absolute LCOC enables quantifying the cost-effectiveness of absorber coatings, as well as finding optimal operating conditions. The absolute LCOC is investigated for different hypothetic coatings and is demonstrated on Pyromark 2500 paint. Results show that absorber coatings yield lower LCOE values in most cases, even at significant costs. Optimal reapplication intervals range from one to five years. At receiver temperatures greater than 700 °C, non-selective coatings are not always worthwhile while durable selective coatings consistently reduce the LCOE—up to 12% of the value obtained for an uncoated receiver. Moreover the absolute LCOC is a powerful tool to characterize and compare different coatings, not only considering their initial efficiencies but also including their durability.

  15. Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) metric to characterize solar absorber coatings for the CSP industry

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Boubault, Antoine; Ho, Clifford K.; Hall, Aaron; Lambert, Timothy N.; Ambrosini, Andrea

    2015-07-08

    The contribution of each component of a power generation plant to the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) can be estimated and used to increase the power output while reducing system operation and maintenance costs. The LCOE is used in order to quantify solar receiver coating influence on the LCOE of solar power towers. Two new parameters are introduced: the absolute levelized cost of coating (LCOC) and the LCOC efficiency. Depending on the material properties, aging, costs, and temperature, the absolute LCOC enables quantifying the cost-effectiveness of absorber coatings, as well as finding optimal operating conditions. The absolute LCOC is investigatedmore » for different hypothetic coatings and is demonstrated on Pyromark 2500 paint. Results show that absorber coatings yield lower LCOE values in most cases, even at significant costs. Optimal reapplication intervals range from one to five years. At receiver temperatures greater than 700 °C, non-selective coatings are not always worthwhile while durable selective coatings consistently reduce the LCOE—up to 12% of the value obtained for an uncoated receiver. Moreover the absolute LCOC is a powerful tool to characterize and compare different coatings, not only considering their initial efficiencies but also including their durability.« less

  16. A system-level cost-of-energy wind farm layout optimization with landowner modeling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chen, Le [Ames Laboratory; MacDonald, Erin [Ames Laboratory

    2013-10-01

    This work applies an enhanced levelized wind farm cost model, including landowner remittance fees, to determine optimal turbine placements under three landowner participation scenarios and two land-plot shapes. Instead of assuming a continuous piece of land is available for the wind farm construction, as in most layout optimizations, the problem formulation represents landowner participation scenarios as a binary string variable, along with the number of turbines. The cost parameters and model are a combination of models from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Windustiy. The system-level cost-of-energy (COE) optimization model is also tested under two land-plot shapes: equally-sized square land plots and unequal rectangle land plots. The optimal COEs results are compared to actual COE data and found to be realistic. The results show that landowner remittances account for approximately 10% of farm operating costs across all cases. Irregular land-plot shapes are easily handled by the model. We find that larger land plots do not necessarily receive higher remittance fees. The model can help site developers identify the most crucial land plots for project success and the optimal positions of turbines, with realistic estimates of costs and profitability. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

  17. Evaluation of the Super ESPC Program: Level 2 -- Recalculated Cost Savings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shonder, John A; Hughes, Patrick

    2009-04-01

    This report presents the results of Level 2 of a three-tiered evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy Federal Energy Management Program's Super Energy Savings Performance Contract (Super ESPC) Program. Level 1 of the analysis studied all of the Super ESPC projects for which at least one Annual Measurement & Verification (M&V) Report had been produced by April 2006. For those 102 projects in aggregate, we found that the value of cost savings reported by the energy service company (ESCO) in the Annual M&V Reports was 108% of the cost savings guaranteed in the contracts. We also compared estimated energy savings (which are not guaranteed, but are the basis for the guaranteed cost savings) to the energy savings reported by the ESCO in the Annual M&V Report. In aggregate, reported energy savings were 99.8% of estimated energy savings on the basis of site energy, or 102% of estimated energy savings based on source energy. Level 2 focused on a random sample of 27 projects taken from the 102 Super ESPC projects studied in Level 1. The objectives were, for each project in the sample, to: repeat the calculations of the annual energy and cost savings in the most recent Annual M&V Report to validate the ESCO's results or correct any errors, and recalculate the value of the reported energy, water, and operations and maintenance (O&M) savings using actual utility prices paid at the project site instead of the 'contract' energy prices - the prices that are established in the project contract as those to be used by the ESCO to calculate the annual cost savings, which determine whether the guarantee has been met. Level 3 analysis will be conducted on three to five projects from the Level 2 sample that meet validity criteria for whole-building or whole-facility data analysis. This effort will verify energy and cost savings using statistical analysis of actual utility use, cost, and weather data. This approach, which can only be used for projects meeting particular validity

  18. EPACT2005 Loan Guarantee Program (released in AEO2008)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2008-01-01

    Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPACT) authorized the Department of Energy (DOE) to issue loan guarantees for projects involving new or improved technologies to avoid, reduce, or sequester greenhouse gases (GHGs). The law specified that the amount of the guarantee would be up to 80% of a project's cost. EPACT2005 also specified that DOE must receive funds equal to the subsidy cost either through the federal appropriations process or from the firm receiving the guarantee. As discussed in Annual Energy Outlook 2007, this program, by lowering borrowing costs, can have a major impact on the economics of capital-intensive technologies.

  19. Summary of AEO2015 Renewable Electricity Working Group Meeting

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... approach than basing costs on one plant. A participant noted that perhaps the ... Biomass generation is less under the CPP as more coal-fired plants are retired so there are ...

  20. Low-cost household paint abatement to reduce children's blood lead levels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taha, T.; Kanarek, M.S.; Schultz, B.D.; Murphy, A.

    1999-11-01

    The purpose was to examine the effectiveness of low-cost abatement on children's blood lead levels. Blood lead was analyzed before and after abatement in 37 homes of children under 7 years old with initial blood lead levels of 25--44 {micro}g/dL. Ninety-five percent of homes were built before 1950. Abatement methods used were wet-scraping and repainting deteriorated surfaces and wrapping window wells with aluminum or vinyl. A control group was retrospectively selected. Control children were under 7 years old, had initial blood lead levels of 25--44 {micro}g/dL and a follow-up level at least 28 days afterward, and did not have abatements performed in their homes between blood lead levels. After abatement, statistically significant declines occurred in the intervention children's blood lead levels. The mean decline was 22%, 1 to 6 months after treatment. After adjustment for seasonality and child's age, the mean decline was 6.0 {micro}g/dL, or 18%. The control children's blood levels did not decline significantly. There was a mean decline of 0.25 {micro}g/dL, or 0.39%. After adjustment for seasonality and age, the mean decline for control children was 1.6 {micro}g/dL, or 1.8%. Low-cost abatement and education are effective short-term interim controls.

  1. Comparison of costs for solidification of high-level radioactive waste solutions: glass monoliths vs metal matrices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jardine, L.J.; Carlton, R.E.; Steindler, M.J.

    1981-05-01

    A comparative economic analysis was made of four solidification processes for liquid high-level radioactive waste. Two processes produced borosilicate glass monoliths and two others produced metal matrix composites of lead and borosilicate glass beads and lead and supercalcine pellets. Within the uncertainties of the cost (1979 dollars) estimates, the cost of the four processes was about the same, with the major cost component being the cost of the primary building structure. Equipment costs and operating and maintenance costs formed only a small portion of the building structure costs for all processes.

  2. Analyzing the Levelized Cost of Centralized and Distributed Hydrogen Production Using the H2A Production Model, Version 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ramsden, T.; Steward, D.; Zuboy, J.

    2009-09-01

    Analysis of the levelized cost of producing hydrogen via different pathways using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's H2A Hydrogen Production Model, Version 2.

  3. Wind Levelized Cost of Energy: A Comparison of Technical and Financing Input Variables

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cory, K.; Schwabe, P.

    2009-10-01

    The expansion of wind power capacity in the United States has increased the demand for project development capital. In response, innovative approaches to financing wind projects have emerged and are proliferating in the U.S. renewable energy marketplace. Wind power developers and financiers have become more efficient and creative in structuring their financial relationships, and often tailor them to different investor types and objectives. As a result, two similar projects may use very different cash flows and financing arrangements, which can significantly vary the economic competitiveness of wind projects. This report assesses the relative impact of numerous financing, technical, and operating variables on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) associated with a wind project under various financing structures in the U.S. marketplace. Under this analysis, the impacts of several financial and technical variables on the cost of wind electricity generation are first examined individually to better understand the relative importance of each. Then, analysts examine a low-cost and a high-cost financing scenario, where multiple variables are modified simultaneously. Lastly, the analysis also considers the impact of a suite of financial variables versus a suite of technical variables.

  4. Cost estimate of high-level radioactive waste containers for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Russell, E.W.; Clarke, W.; Domian, H.A.; Madson, A.A.

    1991-08-01

    This report summarizes the bottoms-up cost estimates for fabrication of high-level radioactive waste disposal containers based on the Site Characterization Plan Conceptual Design (SCP-CD). These estimates were acquired by Babcock and Wilcox (B&S) under sub-contract to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project (YMP). The estimates were obtained for two leading container candidate materials (Alloy 825 and CDA 715), and from other three vendors who were selected from a list of twenty solicited. Three types of container designs were analyzed that represent containers for spent fuel, and for vitrified high-level waste (HLW). The container internal structures were assumed to be AISI-304 stainless steel in all cases, with an annual production rate of 750 containers. Subjective techniques were used for estimating QA/QC costs based on vendor experience and the specifications derived for the LLNL-YMP Quality Assurance program. In addition, an independent QA/QC analysis is reported which was prepared by Kasier Engineering. Based on the cost estimates developed, LLNL recommends that values of $825K and $62K be used for the 1991 TSLCC for the spent fuel and HLW containers, respectively. These numbers represent the most conservative among the three vendors, and are for the high-nickel anstenitic steel (Alloy 825). 6 refs., 7 figs.

  5. Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis of Marine and Hydrokinetic Reference Models: Preprint

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jenne, D. S.; Yu, Y. H.; Neary, V.

    2015-04-24

    In 2010 the U.S. Department of Energy initiated the development of six marine energy converter reference models. The reference models are point designs of well-known marine energy converters. Each device was designed to operate in a specific marine resource, instead of a generic device that can be deployed at any location. This method allows each device to be used as a benchmark for future reference model to benchmark future devices. The six designs consist of three current energy converters and three wave energy converters. The reference model project has generated both technical and economic data sets that are available in the public domain. The methodology to calculate the levelized cost of energy for the reference model project and an overall comparison of the cost of energy from these six reference-model designs are presented in this paper.

  6. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Low-Level Waste Burial Ground. Main Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Murphy, E. S.; Holter, G. M.

    1980-06-01

    Safety and cost information are developed for the conceptual decommissioning of commercial low-level waste (LLW) burial grounds. Two generic burial grounds, one located on an arid western site and the other located on a humid eastern site, are used as reference facilities for the study. The two burial grounds are assumed to have the same site capacity for waste, the same radioactive waste inventory, and similar trench characteristics and operating procedures. The climate, geology. and hydrology of the two sites are chosen to be typical of real western and eastern sites. Volume 1 (Main Report) contains background information and study results in summary form.

  7. Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis of Marine and Hydrokinetic Reference Models: Preprint

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis of Marine and Hydrokinetic Reference Models Preprint D. S. Jenne and Y.-H. Yu National Renewable Energy Laboratory V. Neary Sandia National Laboratories To be presented at the 3 rd Marine Energy Technology Symposium (METS 2015) Washington, D.C. April 27-29, 2015 Conference Paper NREL/CP-5000-64013 April 2015 NOTICE The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (Alliance), a contractor of the US Government

  8. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Low-Level Waste Burial Ground. Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1980-06-01

    Safety and cost information are developed for the conceptual decommissioning of commercial low-level waste (LLW) burial grounds. Two generic burial grounds, one located on an arid western site and the other located on a humid eastern site, are used as reference facilities for the study. The two burial grounds are assumed to have the same site capacity for waste, the same radioactive waste inventory, and similar trench characteristics and operating procedures. The climate, geology. and hydrology of the two sites are chosen to be typical of real western and eastern sites. Volume 2 (Appendices) contains the detailed analyses and data needed to support the results given in Volume 1.

  9. Comparison of AEO 2008 Natural Gas Price Forecast to NYMEX Futures Prices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark A; Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan

    2008-01-07

    On December 12, 2007, the reference-case projections from Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO 2008) were posted on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) web site. We at LBNL have, in the past, compared the EIA's reference-case long-term natural gas price forecasts from the AEO series to contemporaneous natural gas prices that can be locked in through the forward market, with the goal of better understanding fuel price risk and the role that renewables can play in mitigating such risk. As such, we were curious to see how the latest AEO reference-case gas price forecast compares to the NYMEX natural gas futures strip. This brief memo presents our findings. Note that this memo pertains only to natural gas fuel price risk (i.e., the risk that natural gas prices might differ over the life of a gas-fired generation asset from what was expected when the decision to build the gas-fired unit was made). We do not take into consideration any of the other distinct attributes of gas-fired and renewable generation, such as dispatchability (or lack thereof) or environmental externalities. A comprehensive comparison of different resource types--which is well beyond the scope of this memo--would need to account for differences in all such attributes, including fuel price risk. Furthermore, our analysis focuses solely on natural-gas-fired generation (as opposed to coal-fired generation, for example), for several reasons: (1) price volatility has been more of a concern for natural gas than for other fuels used to generate power; (2) for environmental and other reasons, natural gas has, in recent years, been the fuel of choice among power plant developers (though its appeal has diminished somewhat as prices have increased); and (3) natural gas-fired generators often set the market clearing price in competitive wholesale power markets throughout the United States. That said, a more-complete analysis of how renewables mitigate fuel price risk would also need to consider coal and

  10. Tax Credits and Renewable Generation (released in AEO2009)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2009-01-01

    Tax incentives have been an important factor in the growth of renewable generation over the past decade, and they could continue to be important in the future. The Energy Tax Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-618) established ITCs for wind, and EPACT92 established the Renewable Electricity Production Credit (more commonly called the PTC) as an incentive to promote certain kinds of renewable generation beyond wind on the basis of production levels. Specifically, the PTC provided an inflation-adjusted tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatthour for generation sold from qualifying facilities during the first 10 years of operation. The credit was available initially to wind plants and facilities that used closed-loop biomass fuels and were placed in service after passage of the Act and before June 1999.

  11. Comparison of SRP high-level waste disposal costs for borosilicate glass and crystalline ceramic waste forms

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McDonell, W R

    1982-04-01

    An evaluation of costs for the immobilization and repository disposal of SRP high-level wastes indicates that the borosilicate glass waste form is less costly than the crystalline ceramic waste form. The wastes were assumed immobilized as glass with 28% waste loading in 10,300 reference 24-in.-diameter canisters or as crystalline ceramic with 65% waste loading in either 3400 24-in.-diameter canisters or 5900 18-in.-diameter canisters. After an interim period of onsite storage, the canisters would be transported to the federal repository for burial. Total costs in undiscounted 1981 dollars of the waste disposal operations, excluding salt processing for which costs are not yet well defined, were about $2500 million for the borosilicate glass form in reference 24-in.-diameter canisters, compared to about $2900 million for the crystalline ceramic form in 24-in.-diameter canisters and about $3100 million for the crystalline ceramic form in 18-in.-diameter canisters. No large differences in salt processing costs for the borosilicate glass and crystalline ceramic forms are expected. Discounting to present values, because of a projected 2-year delay in startup of the DWPF for the crystalline ceramic form, preserved the overall cost advantage of the borosilicate glass form. The waste immobilization operations for the glass form were much less costly than for the crystalline ceramic form. The waste disposal operations, in contrast, were less costly for the crystalline ceramic form, due to fewer canisters requiring disposal; however, this advantage was not sufficient to offset the higher development and processing costs of the crystalline ceramic form. Changes in proposed Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations to permit lower cost repository packages for defense high-level wastes would decrease the waste disposal costs of the more numerous borosilicate glass forms relative to the crystalline ceramic forms.

  12. A Survey of State-Level Cost and Benefit Estimates of Renewable...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ... have used different methods to estimate RPS ... to the cost of a new coal-fired facility, determined by ... potential future federal regulation of coal plants. ...

  13. Funding Opportunity: Geothermal Technologies Program Seeks Technologies to Reduce Levelized Cost of Electricity for Hydrothermal Development and EGS

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Geothermal Technologies Program seeks non-prime mover technologies that have the potential to contribute to reducing the levelized cost of electricity from new hydrothermal development to 6¢/ kWh by 2020 and Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) to 6¢/ kWh by 2030.

  14. Analyzing the Levelized Cost of Centralized and Distributed Hydrogen Production Using the H2A Production Model, Version 2

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    267 September 2009 Analyzing the Levelized Cost of Centralized and Distributed Hydrogen Production Using the H2A Production Model, Version 2 T. Ramsden and D. Steward National Renewable Energy Laboratory J. Zuboy Independent Contractor National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 * www.nrel.gov NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for

  15. Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Renewables Portfolio Standards:A Comparative Analysis of State-Level Policy Impact Projections

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chen, Cliff; Wiser, Ryan; Bolinger, Mark

    2007-01-16

    State renewables portfolio standards (RPS) have emerged as one of the most important policy drivers of renewable energy capacity expansion in the U.S. Collectively, these policies now apply to roughly 40% of U.S. electricity load, and may have substantial impacts on electricity markets, ratepayers, and local economies. As RPS policies have been proposed or adopted in an increasing number of states, a growing number of studies have attempted to quantify the potential impacts of these policies, focusing primarily on projecting cost impacts, but sometimes also estimating macroeconomic and environmental effects. This report synthesizes and analyzes the results and methodologies of 28 distinct state or utility-level RPS cost impact analyses completed since 1998. Together, these studies model proposed or adopted RPS policies in 18 different states. We highlight the key findings of these studies on the costs and benefits of RPS policies, examine the sensitivity of projected costs to model assumptions, assess the attributes of different modeling approaches, and suggest possible areas of improvement for future RPS analysis.

  16. Cost savings associated with landfilling wastes containing very low levels of uranium

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boggs, C.J.; Shaddoan, W.T.

    1996-03-01

    The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) has operated captive landfills (both residential and construction/demolition debris) in accordance with the Commonwealth of Kentucky regulations since the early 1980s. Typical waste streams allowed in these landfills include nonhazardous industrial and municipal solid waste (such as paper, plastic, cardboard, cafeteria waste, clothing, wood, asbestos, fly ash, metals, and construction debris). In July 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued new requirements for the disposal of sanitary wastes in a {open_quotes}contained landfill.{close_quotes} These requirements were promulgated in the 401 Kentucky Administrative Record Chapters 47 and 48 that became effective 30 June 1995. The requirements for a new contained landfill include a synthetic liner made of high-density polyethylene in addition to the traditional 1-meter (3-foot) clay liner and a leachate collection system. A new landfill at Paducah would accept waste streams similar to those that have been accepted in the past. The permit for the previously existing landfills did not include radioactivity limits; instead, these levels were administratively controlled. Typically, if radioactivity was detected above background levels, the waste was classified as low-level waste (LLW), which would be sent off-site for disposal.

  17. Reevaluation Of Vitrified High-Level Waste Form Criteria For Potential Cost Savings At The Defense Waste Processing Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ray, J. W.; Marra, S. L.; Herman, C. C.

    2013-01-09

    At the Savannah River Site (SRS) the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) has been immobilizing SRS's radioactive high level waste (HLW) sludge into a durable borosilicate glass since 1996. Currently the DWPF has poured over 3,500 canisters, all of which are compliant with the U. S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms (WAPS) and therefore ready to be shipped to a federal geologic repository for permanent disposal. Due to DOE petitioning to withdraw the Yucca Mountain License Application (LA) from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2010 and thus no clear disposal path for SRS canistered waste forms, there are opportunities for cost savings with future canister production at DWPF and other DOE producer sites by reevaluating high-level waste form requirements and compliance strategies and reducing/eliminating those that will not negatively impact the quality of the canistered waste form.

  18. Reevaluation of Vitrified High-Level Waste Form Criteria for Potential Cost Savings at the Defense Waste Processing Facility - 13598

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ray, J.W.; Marra, S.L.; Herman, C.C.

    2013-07-01

    At the Savannah River Site (SRS) the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) has been immobilizing SRS's radioactive high level waste (HLW) sludge into a durable borosilicate glass since 1996. Currently the DWPF has poured over 3,500 canisters, all of which are compliant with the U. S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Acceptance Product Specifications for Vitrified High-Level Waste Forms (WAPS) and therefore ready to be shipped to a federal geologic repository for permanent disposal. Due to DOE petitioning to withdraw the Yucca Mountain License Application (LA) from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2010 and thus no clear disposal path for SRS canistered waste forms, there are opportunities for cost savings with future canister production at DWPF and other DOE producer sites by reevaluating high-level waste form requirements and compliance strategies and reducing/eliminating those that will not negatively impact the quality of the canistered waste form. (authors)

  19. 209-E _Building_Deactivation_CX.pdf

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AEO2016 Levelized Costs 1 August 2016 Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2016 This paper presents average values of levelized costs for generating technologies entering service in 2018, 2022, 1 and 2040 as represented in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the Annual Energy Outlook 2016 (AEO2016) Reference case. 2 The levelized costs for generating technologies entering service in 2022 are presented in the body of the

  20. Greenhouse Gas Concerns and Power Sector Planning (released in AEO2009)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2009-01-01

    Concerns about potential climate change driven by rising atmospheric concentrations of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) have grown over the past two decades, both domestically and abroad. In the United States, potential policies to limit or reduce GHG emissions are in various stages of development at the state, regional, and federal levels. In addition to ongoing uncertainty with respect to future growth in energy demand and the costs of fuel, labor, and new plant construction, U.S. electric power companies must consider the effects of potential policy changes to limit or reduce GHG emissions that would significantly alter their planning and operating decisions. The possibility of such changes may already be affecting planning decisions for new generating capacity.

  1. Integrating Volume Reduction and Packaging Alternatives to Achieve Cost Savings for Low Level Waste Disposal at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Church, A.; Gordon, J.; Montrose, J. K.

    2002-02-26

    In order to reduce costs and achieve schedules for Closure of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS), the Waste Requirements Group has implemented a number of cost saving initiatives aimed at integrating waste volume reduction with the selection of compliant waste packaging methods for the disposal of RFETS low level radioactive waste (LLW). Waste Guidance Inventory and Shipping Forecasts indicate that over 200,000 m3 of low level waste will be shipped offsite between FY2002 and FY2006. Current projections indicate that the majority of this waste will be shipped offsite in an estimated 40,000 55-gallon drums, 10,000 metal and plywood boxes, and 5000 cargo containers. Currently, the projected cost for packaging, shipment, and disposal adds up to $80 million. With these waste volume and cost projections, the need for more efficient and cost effective packaging and transportation options were apparent in order to reduce costs and achieve future Site packaging a nd transportation needs. This paper presents some of the cost saving initiatives being implemented for waste packaging at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (the Site). There are many options for either volume reduction or alternative packaging. Each building and/or project may indicate different preferences and/or combinations of options.

  2. Levelized life-cycle costs for four residue-collection systems and four gas-production systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thayer, G.R.; Rood, P.L.; Williamson, K.D. Jr.; Rollett, H.

    1983-01-01

    Technology characterizations and life-cycle costs were obtained for four residue-collection systems and four gas-production systems. All costs are in constant 1981 dollars. The residue-collection systems were cornstover collection, wheat-straw collection, soybean-residue collection, and wood chips from forest residue. The life-cycle costs ranged from $19/ton for cornstover collection to $56/ton for wood chips from forest residues. The gas-production systems were low-Btu gas from a farm-size gasifier, solar flash pyrolysis of biomass, methane from seaweed farms, and hydrogen production from bacteria. Life-cycle costs ranged from $3.3/10/sup 6/ Btu for solar flash pyrolysis of biomass to $9.6/10/sup 6/ Btu for hydrogen from bacteria. Sensitivity studies were also performed for each system. The sensitivity studies indicated that fertilizer replacement costs were the dominate costs for the farm-residue collection, while residue yield was most important for the wood residue. Feedstock costs were most important for the flash pyrolysis. Yields and capital costs are most important for the seaweed farm and the hydrogen from bacteria system.

  3. U.S. Nuclear Power Plants: Continued Life or Replacement After 60? (released in AEO2010)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2010-01-01

    Nuclear power plants generate approximately 20% of U.S. electricity, and the plants in operation today are often seen as attractive assets in the current environment of uncertainty about future fossil fuel prices, high construction costs for new power plants (particularly nuclear plants), and the potential enactment of greenhouse gas regulations. Existing nuclear power plants have low fuel costs and relatively high power output. However, there is uncertainty about how long they will be allowed to continue operating.

  4. Potential for savings in compliance costs for reducing ground-level ozone possible by instituting seasonal versus annual nitric oxide emission limits

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lookman, A.A.

    1996-12-31

    Ground-level ozone is formed in the atmosphere from its precursor emissions, namely nitric oxide (NO{sub x}) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), with its rate of formation dependent on atmospheric conditions. Since ozone levels tend to be highest during the summer months, seasonal controls of precursors have been suggested as a means of reducing the costs of decreasing ozone concentrations to acceptable levels. This paper attempts to quantify what the potential savings if seasonal control were instituted for coal-fired power plants, assuming that only commercially available NO{sub x} control technologies are used. Cost savings through seasonal control is measured by calculating the total annualized cost of NO{sub x} removal at a given amount of seasonal control for different target levels of annual control. For this study, it is assumed that trading of NO{sub x} emissions will be allowed, as has been proposed by the Ozone Transportation Commission (OTC). The problem has been posed as a binary integer linear programming problem, with decision variables being which control to use at each power plant. The results indicate that requiring annual limits which are lower than seasonal limits can substantially reduce compliance costs. These savings occur because requiring stringent compliance only on a seasonal basis allows power plants to use control methods for which the variable costs are paid for only part of the year, and through the use of gas-based controls, which are much cheaper to operate in the summer months.

  5. REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO CONTINUATION SHEET DE-AC27-08RV14800/039 2AG O2

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    OTHER REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED AEO CONTINUATION SHEET DE-AC27-08RV14800/039 2AG O2 NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR WASHINGTON RIVER PROTECTION SOLUTIONS LLC QATT I NTPIEAON ITEM NO. SUPPLIESISERVICESQUNIYNT UITPCEAOT (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Fund 01050 Appr Year 2010 Allottee 34 Reporting Entity 421301 Amount: $43,752,060.00 Account code: P&B Rocky Flats Post Retirement Benefits Fund 01050 Appr Year 2010 Allottee 34 Reporting Entity 421301 Amount: $51,480,000.00 Account,_code:

  6. Weighing the Costs and Benefits of State Renewables Portfolio Standards in the United States: A Comparative Analysis of State-Level Policy Impact Projections

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chen, Cliff; Wiser, Ryan; Mills, Andrew; Bolinger, Mark

    2008-01-07

    State renewables portfolio standards (RPS) have emerged as one of the most important policy drivers of renewable energy capacity expansion in the U.S. As RPS policies have been proposed or adopted in an increasing number of states, a growing number of studies have attempted to quantify the potential impacts of these policies, focusing primarily on cost impacts, but sometimes also estimating macroeconomic, risk reduction, and environmental effects. This article synthesizes and analyzes the results and methodologies of 31 distinct state or utility-level RPS cost-impact analyses completed since 1998. Together, these studies model proposed or adopted RPS policies in 20 different states. We highlight the key findings of these studies on the projected costs of state RPS policies, examine the sensitivity of projected costs to model assumptions, evaluate the reasonableness of key input assumptions, and suggest possible areas of improvement for future RPS analyses. We conclude that while there is considerable uncertainty in the study results, the majority of the studies project modest cost impacts. Seventy percent of the state RPS cost studies project retail electricity rate increases of no greater than one percent. Nonetheless, there is considerable room for improving the analytic methods, and therefore accuracy, of these estimates.

  7. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles (released in AEO2005)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2005-01-01

    In July 2002, California Assembly Bill 1493 (A.B. 1493) was signed into law. The law requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles that provide the maximum feasible reduction in emissions. In estimating the feasibility of the standard, CARB is required to consider cost-effectiveness, technological capability, economic impacts, and flexibility for manufacturers in meeting the standard.

  8. Slide 1

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    ... Energy Outlook (AEO) Energy & Electricity Consumption in Buildings Major energy consumers ... Cost-Effective Energy Savings by End Use AEO: Annual Energy Outlook ET: ...

  9. Maximum Achievable Control Technology for New Industrial Boilers (released in AEO2005)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2005-01-01

    As part of Clean Air Act 90 (CAAA90, the EPA on February 26, 2004, issued a final rulethe National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters. The rule requires industrial boilers and process heaters to meet limits on HAP emissions to comply with a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) floor level of control that is the minimum level such sources must meet to comply with the rule. The major HAPs to be reduced are hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and nickel. The EPA predicts that the boiler MACT rule will reduce those HAP emissions from existing sources by about 59,000 tons per year in 2005.

  10. State Restrictions on Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (released in AEO2006)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2006-01-01

    By the end of 2005, 25 states had barred, or passed laws banning, any more than trace levels of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in their gasoline supplies, and legislation to ban MTBE was pending in 4 others. Some state laws address only MTBE; others also address ethers such as ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE) and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME). Annual Energy Outlook 2006 assumes that all state MTBE bans prohibit the use of all ethers for gasoline blending.

  11. Production Tax Credit for Renewable Electricity Generation (released in AEO2005)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2005-01-01

    In the late 1970s and early 1980s, environmental and energy security concerns were addressed at the federal level by several key pieces of energy legislation. Among them, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), P.L. 95-617, required regulated power utilities to purchase alternative electricity generation from qualified generating facilities, including small-scale renewable generators; and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), P.L. 95-618, part of the Energy Tax Act of 1978, provided a 10% federal tax credit on new investment in capital-intensive wind and solar generation technologies.

  12. Update on State Air Emission Regulations That Affect Electric Power Producers (released in AEO2005)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2005-01-01

    Several states have recently enacted air emission regulations that will affect the electricity generation sector. The regulations are intended to improve air quality in the states and assist them in complying with the revised 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone and fine particulates. The affected states include Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The regulations govern emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2, and mercury from power plants.

  13. Proposed Revisions to Light Truck Fuel Economy Standard (released in AEO2006)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2006-01-01

    In August 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published proposed reforms to the structure of CAFE standards for light trucks and increases in light truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model years 2008 through 201. Under the proposed new structure, NHTSA would establish minimum fuel economy levels for six size categories defined by the vehicle footprint (wheelbase multiplied by track width), as summarized in Table 3. For model years 2008 through 2010, the new CAFE standards would provide manufacturers the option of complying with either the standards defined for each individual footprint category or a proposed average light truck fleet standard of 22.5 miles per gallon in 2008, 23.1 miles per gallon in 2009, and 23.5 miles per gallon in 2010. All light truck manufacturers would be required to meet an overall standard based on sales within each individual footprint category after model year 2010.

  14. Regulation of Emissions from Stationary Diesel Engines (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    On July 11, 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations covering emissions from stationary diesel engines New Source Performance Standards that limit emissions of NOx, particulate matter, SO2, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons to the same levels required for nonroad diesel engines. The regulation affects new, modified, and reconstructed diesel engines. Beginning with model year 2007, engine manufacturers must specify that new engines less than 3,000 horsepower meet the same emissions standard as nonroad diesel engines. For engines greater than 3,000 horsepower, the standard will be fully effective in 2011. Stationary diesel engine fuel will also be subject to the same standard as nonroad diesel engine fuel, which reduces the sulfur content of the fuel to 500 parts per million by mid-2007 and 15 parts per million by mid-2010.

  15. State Renewable Energy Requirements and Goals: Update through 2008 (Update) (released in AEO2009)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2010-01-01

    State renewable portfolio standards (RPS) programs continue to play an important role in Annual Energy Outlook 2009, growing in number while existing programs are modified with more stringent targets. In total, 28 states and the District of Columbia now have mandatory RPS programs, and at least 4 other states have voluntary renewable energy programs. In the absence of a federal renewable electricity standard, each state determines its own levels of generation, eligible technologies, and noncompliance penalties. The growth in state renewable energy requirements has led to an expansion of renewable energy credit (REC) markets, which vary from state to state. Credit prices depend on the state renewable requirements and how easily they can be met.

  16. Federal and State Ethanol and Biodiesel Requirements (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    The Energy Policy Act 2005 requires that the use of renewable motor fuels be increased from the 2004 level of just over 4 billion gallons to a minimum of 7.5 billion gallons in 2012, after which the requirement grows at a rate equal to the growth of the gasoline pool. The law does not require that every gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel be blended with renewable fuels. Refiners are free to use renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, in geographic regions and fuel formulations that make the most sense, as long as they meet the overall standard. Conventional gasoline and diesel can be blended with renewables without any change to the petroleum components, although fuels used in areas with air quality problems are likely to require adjustment to the base gasoline or diesel fuel if they are to be blended with renewables.

  17. Life-Cycle Cost and Risk Analysis of Alternative Configurations for Shipping Low-Level Radioactive Waste to the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    PM Daling; SB Ross; BM Biwer

    1999-12-17

    The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is a major receiver of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) for disposal. Currently, all LLW received at NTS is shipped by truck. The trucks use highway routes to NTS that pass through the Las Vegas Valley and over Hoover Dam, which is a concern of local stakeholder groups in the State of Nevada. Rail service offers the opportunity to reduce transportation risks and costs, according to the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM-PEIS). However, NTS and some DOE LLW generator sites are not served with direct rail service so intermodal transport is under consideration. Intermodal transport involves transport via two modes, in this case truck and rail, from the generator sites to NTS. LLW shipping containers would be transferred between trucks and railcars at intermodal transfer points near the LLW generator sites, NTS, or both. An Environmental Assessment (EA)for Intermodal Transportation of Low-Level Radioactive Waste to the Nevada Test Site (referred to as the NTSIntermodal -M) has been prepared to determine whether there are environmental impacts to alterations to the current truck routing or use of intermodal facilities within the State of Nevada. However, an analysis of the potential impacts outside the State of Nevada are not addressed in the NTS Intermodal EA. This study examines the rest of the transportation network between LLW generator sites and the NTS and evaluates the costs, risks, and feasibility of integrating intermodal shipments into the LLW transportation system. This study evaluates alternative transportation system configurations for NTS approved and potential generators based on complex-wide LLW load information. Technical judgments relative to the availability of DOE LLW generators to ship from their sites by rail were developed. Public and worker risk and life-cycle cost components are quantified. The study identifies and evaluates alternative scenarios that increase the use of rail (intermodal

  18. Levelized cost and levelized avoiced cost of new generation resources...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Technologies Wind 34 56.6 13.3 0.0 3.2 73.1 Wind - Offshore 37 141.7 22.8 0.0 5.7 170.3 Solar PV 2 25 95.3 11.4 0.0 4.0 110.8 -9.5 101.3 Solar Thermal 20 156.2 42.1 0.0 5.9 204.3...

  19. Levelized Cost of Electricity and Levelized Avoided Cost of Electricit...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... are the number of hours in a year that the plant is assumed to operate. For dispatchable generation such as coal, nuclear, or gas-fired plants, EIA calculates this based on an ...

  20. AEO2015 BWG

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    heaters, refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers * Contract report from LeidosNavigant will be available online Discussion purposes only - do ...

  1. Startup Costs

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    1997-03-28

    This chapter discusses startup costs for construction and environmental projects, and estimating guidance for startup costs.

  2. Table 8.2 Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Central Station Electricity Generating Technologies

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Domestic Crude Oil Production, Projected vs. Actual Projected (million barrels) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 2508 2373 2256 2161 2088 2022 1953 1891 1851 1825 1799 1781 1767 1759 1778 1789 1807 1862 AEO 1995 2402 2307 2205 2095 2037 1967 1953 1924 1916 1905 1894 1883 1887 1887 1920 1945 1967 AEO 1996 2387 2310 2248 2172 2113 2062 2011 1978 1953 1938 1916 1920 1927 1949 1971 1986 2000 2018 2055 AEO 1997 2362 2307

  3. Impacts of Increased Access to Oil & Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    This analysis was updated for Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (AEO): Impact of Limitations on Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The OCS is estimated to contain substantial resources of crude oil and natural gas; however, some areas of the OCS are subject to drilling restrictions. With energy prices rising over the past several years, there has been increased interest in the development of more domestic oil and natural gas supply, including OCS resources. In the past, federal efforts to encourage exploration and development activities in the deep waters of the OCS have been limited primarily to regulations that would reduce royalty payments by lease holders. More recently, the states of Alaska and Virginia have asked the federal government to consider leasing in areas off their coastlines that are off limits as a result of actions by the President or Congress. In response, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior has included in its proposed 5-year leasing plan for 2007-2012 sales of one lease in the Mid-Atlantic area off the coastline of Virginia and two leases in the North Aleutian Basin area of Alaska. Development in both areas still would require lifting of the current ban on drilling.

  4. Technical and economic assessments of electrochemical energy storage systems: Topical report on the potential for savings in load-leveling battery and balance of plant costs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Abraham, J.; Binas, G.; Del Monaco, J.L.; Pandya, D.A.; Sharp, T.E.; Consiglio, J.A.

    1985-08-31

    The battery technologies considered in this study are zinc-bromide, lead-acid, zinc-chloride and sodium sulfur. Results of the study are presented in self contained sections in the following order: Balance of Plant, Zinc-Bromide, Lead-Acid, Zinc-chloride, and Sodium-Sulfur. The balance of plant cost estimates are examined first since the results of this section are utilized in the following battery sections to generate cost reductions in the battery plant costs for each of the battery technologies.

  5. Energy Demand: Limits on the Response to Higher Energy Prices in the End-Use Sectors (released in AEO2007)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    Energy consumption in the end-use demand sectorsresidential, commercial, industrial, and transportationgenerally shows only limited change when energy prices increase. Several factors that limit the sensitivity of end-use energy demand to price signals are common across the end-use sectors. For example, because energy generally is consumed in long-lived capital equipment, short-run consumer responses to changes in energy prices are limited to reductions in the use of energy services or, in a few cases, fuel switching; and because energy services affect such critical lifestyle areas as personal comfort, medical services, and travel, end-use consumers often are willing to absorb price increases rather than cut back on energy use, especially when they are uncertain whether price increases will be long-lasting. Manufacturers, on the other hand, often are able to pass along higher energy costs, especially in cases where energy inputs are a relatively minor component of production costs. In economic terms, short-run energy demand typically is inelastic, and long-run energy demand is less inelastic or moderately elastic at best.

  6. Operating Costs

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    1997-03-28

    This chapter is focused on capital costs for conventional construction and environmental restoration and waste management projects and examines operating cost estimates to verify that all elements of the project have been considered and properly estimated.

  7. Workplace Charging Equipment Costs

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Charging stations are available from a variety of manufacturers in a range of models for all charging applications. For a single port charging station, Level 1 hardware costs range from $300-$1,500...

  8. Transmission line capital costs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hughes, K.R.; Brown, D.R.

    1995-05-01

    The displacement or deferral of conventional AC transmission line installation is a key benefit associated with several technologies being developed with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy`s Office of Energy Management (OEM). Previous benefits assessments conducted within OEM have been based on significantly different assumptions for the average cost per mile of AC transmission line. In response to this uncertainty, an investigation of transmission line capital cost data was initiated. The objective of this study was to develop a database for preparing preliminary estimates of transmission line costs. An extensive search of potential data sources identified databases maintained by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) as superior sources of transmission line cost data. The BPA and WAPA data were adjusted to a common basis and combined together. The composite database covers voltage levels from 13.8 to 765 W, with cost estimates for a given voltage level varying depending on conductor size, tower material type, tower frame type, and number of circuits. Reported transmission line costs vary significantly, even for a given voltage level. This can usually be explained by variation in the design factors noted above and variation in environmental and land (right-of-way) costs, which are extremely site-specific. Cost estimates prepared from the composite database were compared to cost data collected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for investor-owned utilities from across the United States. The comparison was hampered because the only design specifications included with the FERC data were voltage level and line length. Working within this limitation, the FERC data were not found to differ significantly from the composite database. Therefore, the composite database was judged to be a reasonable proxy for estimating national average costs.

  9. Cost analysis guidelines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Strait, R.S.

    1996-01-10

    The first phase of the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Management Program (Program)--management strategy selection--consists of several program elements: Technology Assessment, Engineering Analysis, Cost Analysis, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Cost Analysis will estimate the life-cycle costs associated with each of the long-term management strategy alternatives for depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6). The scope of Cost Analysis will include all major expenditures, from the planning and design stages through decontamination and decommissioning. The costs will be estimated at a scoping or preconceptual design level and are intended to assist decision makers in comparing alternatives for further consideration. They will not be absolute costs or bid-document costs. The purpose of the Cost Analysis Guidelines is to establish a consistent approach to analyzing of cost alternatives for managing Department of Energy`s (DOE`s) stocks of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6). The component modules that make up the DUF6 management program differ substantially in operational maintenance, process-options, requirements for R and D, equipment, facilities, regulatory compliance, (O and M), and operations risk. To facilitate a consistent and equitable comparison of costs, the guidelines offer common definitions, assumptions or basis, and limitations integrated with a standard approach to the analysis. Further, the goal is to evaluate total net life-cycle costs and display them in a way that gives DOE the capability to evaluate a variety of overall DUF6 management strategies, including commercial potential. The cost estimates reflect the preconceptual level of the designs. They will be appropriate for distinguishing among management strategies.

  10. BPA's Costs

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    links Financial Information Financial Public Processes Asset Management Cost Verification Process Rate Cases BP-18 Rate Case Related Publications Meetings and Workshops Customer...

  11. Energy Intensity Trends in AEO2010 (released in AEO2010)

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2010-01-01

    Energy intensity (energy consumption per dollar of real GDP) indicates how much energy a country uses to produce its goods and services. From the early 1950s to the early 1970s, U.S. total primary energy consumption and real GDP increased at nearly the same annual rate. During that period, real oil prices remained virtually flat. In contrast, from the mid-1970s to 2008, the relationship between energy consumption and real GDP growth changed, with primary energy consumption growing at less than one-third the previous average rate and real GDP growth continuing to grow at its historical rate. The decoupling of real GDP growth from energy consumption growth led to a decline in energy intensity that averaged 2.8% per year from 1973 to 2008. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Reference case, energy intensity continues to decline, at an average annual rate of 1.9% from 2008 to 2035.

  12. AEO2014 results and status updates for the AEO2015

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... - Retire Intermountain plant in 2025. Office of Electricity, Coal, Nuclear and Renewables Analysis ... two standards for natural gas-fired stationary combustion units, ...

  13. LIFE Cost of Electricity, Capital and Operating Costs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anklam, T

    2011-04-14

    Successful commercialization of fusion energy requires economic viability as well as technical and scientific feasibility. To assess economic viability, we have conducted a pre-conceptual level evaluation of LIFE economics. Unit costs are estimated from a combination of bottom-up costs estimates, working with representative vendors, and scaled results from previous studies of fission and fusion plants. An integrated process model of a LIFE power plant was developed to integrate and optimize unit costs and calculate top level metrics such as cost of electricity and power plant capital cost. The scope of this activity was the entire power plant site. Separately, a development program to deliver the required specialized equipment has been assembled. Results show that LIFE power plant cost of electricity and plant capital cost compare favorably to estimates for new-build LWR's, coal and gas - particularly if indicative costs of carbon capture and sequestration are accounted for.

  14. System Cost Model

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1996-03-27

    SCM is used for estimation of the life-cycle impacts (costs, health and safety risks) of waste management facilities for mixed low-level, low-level, and transuranic waste. SCM uses parametric cost functions to estimate life-cycle costs for various treatment, storage, and disposal modules which reflect planned and existing waste management facilities at Department of Energy (DOE) installations. SCM also provides transportation costs for intersite transfer of DOE wastes. SCM covers the entire DOE waste management complex tomore » allow system sensitivity analysis including: treatment, storage, and disposal configuration options; treatment technology selection; scheduling options; transportation options; waste stream and volume changes; and site specific conditions.« less

  15. AEO2012 Early Release Overview

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    9 U.S. Energy Information Administration | International Energy Outlook 2016 Chapter 2 Petroleum and other liquid fuels Overview In the International Energy Outlook 2016 (IEO2016) Reference case, worldwide consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels increases from 90 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2012 to 100 million b/d in 2020 and 121 million b/d in 2040. Much of the growth in world liquid fuels consumption is projected for the emerging, non-Organization for Economic Cooperation and

  16. AEO Early Release 2013 - oil

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Growing U.S. oil output and rising vehicle fuel economy to cut U.S. reliance on foreign oil The United States is expected to continue cutting its dependence on petroleum and liquid fuels imports over the rest of this decade because of growing domestic crude oil production and more fuel-efficient vehicles on America's highways. The new long-term outlook from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows America's dependence on imported petroleum and liquid fuels will decline from 45 percent of

  17. AEO2012 Early Release Overview

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Mellish, Carrie Milton, Brian Murphy, Kelly Perl, David Peterson, John Powell, Nancy Slater-Thompson, Kay A. Smith, John Staub, Charles L. Smith, Craig Federhen, and Peggy Wells. ...

  18. AEO2014: Preliminary Industrial Output

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Elizabeth Sendich, Analyst, and Kay Smith, Team Leader Macroeconomic Analysis Team ... Macro-Industrial Working Group, Sendich & Smith, 92613 DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE ...

  19. Industrial Plans for AEO2014

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ... 10 Industrial Team Washington DC, July 30, 2013 Macro Team: Kay Smith (202) 586-1132 | kay.smith@eia.gov Vipin Arora (202) 586-1048 | vipin.arora@eia.gov Russell Tarver ...

  20. Low cost electronic ultracapacitor interface technique to provide load leveling of a battery for pulsed load or motor traction drive applications

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    King, Robert Dean; DeDoncker, Rik Wivina Anna Adelson

    1998-01-01

    A battery load leveling arrangement for an electrically powered system in which battery loading is subject to intermittent high current loading utilizes a passive energy storage device and a diode connected in series with the storage device to conduct current from the storage device to the load when current demand forces a drop in battery voltage. A current limiting circuit is connected in parallel with the diode for recharging the passive energy storage device. The current limiting circuit functions to limit the average magnitude of recharge current supplied to the storage device. Various forms of current limiting circuits are disclosed, including a PTC resistor coupled in parallel with a fixed resistor. The current limit circuit may also include an SCR for switching regenerative braking current to the device when the system is connected to power an electric motor.

  1. Betting on the Future: The authors compare natural gas forecaststo futures buys

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bolinger, Mark; Wiser, Ryan

    2006-01-20

    On December 12, 2005, the reference case projections from Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO 2006) were posted on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) web site. We at LBNL have in the past compared the EIA's reference case long-term natural gas price forecasts from the AEO series to contemporaneous natural gas prices that can be locked in through the forward market. The goal is better understanding fuel price risk and the role that renewables play in mitigating such risk. As such, we were curious to see how the latest AEO gas price forecast compares to the NYMEX natural gas futures strip. Below is a discussion of our findings. As a refresher, our past work in this area has found that over the past five years, forward natural gas contracts (with prices that can be locked in--.g., gas futures, swaps, and physical supply) have traded at a premium relative to contemporaneous long-term reference case gas price forecasts from the EIA. As such, we have concluded that, over the past five years at least, levelized cost comparisons of fixed-price renewable generation with variable price gas-fired generation have yielded results that are ''biased'' in favor of gas-fired generation, presuming that long-term price stability is valued. In this article we update our past analysis to include the latest long-term gas price forecast from the EIA, as contained in AEO 2006. For the sake of brevity, we do not rehash information (on methodology, potential explanations for the premiums, etc.) contained in our earlier reports on this topic. As was the case in the past five AEO releases (AEO 2001-AEO 2005), we once again find that the AEO 2006 reference case gas price forecast falls well below where NYMEX natural gas futures contracts were trading at the time the EIA finalized its gas price forecast. In fact, the NYMEX-AEO 2006 reference case comparison yields by far the largest premium--$2.3/MMBtu levelized over five years--that we have seen over the last six years. In other words

  2. Levelized Cost of Energy: A Parametric Study

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Photovoltaic Reliability and Performance Model Jennifer E. Granata, Steven Miller, and Joshua S. Stein PO Box 5800, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185-1033 Contact info: 505 844 8813, jegrana@sandia.gov INTRODUCTION Accurately predicting the performance of photovoltaic systems can be a challenging undertaking, but a necessary one to assess the financial viability of a PV system and to accelerate the wide scale deployment of PV. PV system energy production can be affected by

  3. Microsoft Word - Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    ... between OK and TN) Assumptions on alternatives Plains & Eastern line o Electric losses - 5% o Transmission charge - 8.00 kW-mo Oklahoma wind o Utilization rate - see OK ...

  4. Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. E. Shropshire; K. A. Williams; W. B. Boore; J. D. Smith; B. W. Dixon; M. Dunzik-Gougar; R. D. Adams; D. Gombert; E. Schneider

    2008-03-01

    This report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), provides a comprehensive set of cost data supporting a cost analysis for the relative economic comparison of options for use in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Program. The report describes the AFCI cost basis development process, reference information on AFCI cost modules, a procedure for estimating fuel cycle costs, economic evaluation guidelines, and a discussion on the integration of cost data into economic computer models. This report contains reference cost data for 25 cost modules—23 fuel cycle cost modules and 2 reactor modules. The cost modules were developed in the areas of natural uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, depleted uranium disposition, fuel fabrication, interim spent fuel storage, reprocessing, waste conditioning, spent nuclear fuel (SNF) packaging, long-term monitored retrievable storage, near surface disposal of low-level waste (LLW), geologic repository and other disposal concepts, and transportation processes for nuclear fuel, LLW, SNF, transuranic, and high-level waste.

  5. Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. E. Shropshire; K. A. Williams; W. B. Boore; J. D. Smith; B. W. Dixon; M. Dunzik-Gougar; R. D. Adams; D. Gombert; E. Schneider

    2009-12-01

    This report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), provides a comprehensive set of cost data supporting a cost analysis for the relative economic comparison of options for use in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Program. The report describes the AFCI cost basis development process, reference information on AFCI cost modules, a procedure for estimating fuel cycle costs, economic evaluation guidelines, and a discussion on the integration of cost data into economic computer models. This report contains reference cost data for 25 cost modules—23 fuel cycle cost modules and 2 reactor modules. The cost modules were developed in the areas of natural uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, depleted uranium disposition, fuel fabrication, interim spent fuel storage, reprocessing, waste conditioning, spent nuclear fuel (SNF) packaging, long-term monitored retrievable storage, near surface disposal of low-level waste (LLW), geologic repository and other disposal concepts, and transportation processes for nuclear fuel, LLW, SNF, transuranic, and high-level waste.

  6. Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. E. Shropshire; K. A. Williams; W. B. Boore; J. D. Smith; B. W. Dixon; M. Dunzik-Gougar; R. D. Adams; D. Gombert

    2007-04-01

    This report, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), provides a comprehensive set of cost data supporting a cost analysis for the relative economic comparison of options for use in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Program. The report describes the AFCI cost basis development process, reference information on AFCI cost modules, a procedure for estimating fuel cycle costs, economic evaluation guidelines, and a discussion on the integration of cost data into economic computer models. This report contains reference cost data for 26 cost modules—24 fuel cycle cost modules and 2 reactor modules. The cost modules were developed in the areas of natural uranium mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, depleted uranium disposition, fuel fabrication, interim spent fuel storage, reprocessing, waste conditioning, spent nuclear fuel (SNF) packaging, long-term monitored retrievable storage, near surface disposal of low-level waste (LLW), geologic repository and other disposal concepts, and transportation processes for nuclear fuel, LLW, SNF, and high-level waste.

  7. Estimating Specialty Costs

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    1997-03-28

    Specialty costs are those nonstandard, unusual costs that are not typically estimated. Costs for research and development (R&D) projects involving new technologies, costs associated with future regulations, and specialty equipment costs are examples of specialty costs. This chapter discusses those factors that are significant contributors to project specialty costs and methods of estimating costs for specialty projects.

  8. Replacement Cost of Domestic Crude

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1994-12-01

    The DEEPWATER model forecasts the replacement cost of domestic crude oil for 13 offshore regions in the lower 48 states. The replacement cost of domestic crude oil is the constant or levelized selling price that will recover the full expense of exploration, development, and productions with a reasonable return on capital.

  9. Department of Energy Environmental Management cost infrastructure development program: Cost analysis requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Custer, W.R. Jr.; Messick, C.D.

    1996-03-31

    This report was prepared to support development of the Department of Energy Environmental Management cost infrastructure -- a new capability to independently estimate and analyze costs. Currently, the cost data are reported according to a structure that blends level of effort tasks with product and process oriented tasks. Also. the budgetary inputs are developed from prior year funding authorizations and from contractor-developed parametric estimates that have been adjusted to planned funding levels or appropriations. Consequently, it is difficult for headquarters and field-level activities to use actual cost data and technical requirements to independently assess the costs generated and identify trends, potential cost savings from process improvements, and cost reduction strategies.

  10. Realistic costs of carbon capture

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Al Juaied, Mohammed . Belfer Center for Science and International Affiaris); Whitmore, Adam )

    2009-07-01

    There is a growing interest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a means of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However there are substantial uncertainties about the costs of CCS. Costs for pre-combustion capture with compression (i.e. excluding costs of transport and storage and any revenue from EOR associated with storage) are examined in this discussion paper for First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) plant and for more mature technologies, or Nth-of-a-Kind plant (NOAK). For FOAK plant using solid fuels the levelised cost of electricity on a 2008 basis is approximately 10 cents/kWh higher with capture than for conventional plants (with a range of 8-12 cents/kWh). Costs of abatement are found typically to be approximately US$150/tCO2 avoided (with a range of US$120-180/tCO2 avoided). For NOAK plants the additional cost of electricity with capture is approximately 2-5 cents/kWh, with costs of the range of US$35-70/tCO2 avoided. Costs of abatement with carbon capture for other fuels and technologies are also estimated for NOAK plants. The costs of abatement are calculated with reference to conventional SCPC plant for both emissions and costs of electricity. Estimates for both FOAK and NOAK are mainly based on cost data from 2008, which was at the end of a period of sustained escalation in the costs of power generation plant and other large capital projects. There are now indications of costs falling from these levels. This may reduce the costs of abatement and costs presented here may be 'peak of the market' estimates. If general cost levels return, for example, to those prevailing in 2005 to 2006 (by which time significant cost escalation had already occurred from previous levels), then costs of capture and compression for FOAK plants are expected to be US$110/tCO2 avoided (with a range of US$90-135/tCO2 avoided). For NOAK plants costs are expected to be US$25-50/tCO2. Based on these considerations a likely representative range of costs of abatement from CCS excluding

  11. Factory Cost Model

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1996-12-17

    The Factory Cost Model (FCM) is an economic analysis tool intended to provide flat panel display (FPD) and other similar discrete component manufacturers with the ability to make first-order estimates of the cost of unit production. This software has several intended uses. Primary among these is the ability to provide first-order economic analysis for future factories. Consequently, the model requires a minimal level of input detail, and accomodates situations where actual production data are notmore » available. This software is designed to be activity based such that most of the calculated direct costs are associated with the steps of a manufacturibg process. The FCM architecture has the ability to accomodate the analysis of existing manufacturing facilities. The FCM can provide assistance with strategic economic decisions surrounding production related matters. For instance, the program can project the effect on costs and resources of a new product''s introduction, or it can assess the potential cost reduction produced by step yield improvements in the manufacturing process.« less

  12. Cost Study Manual

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    2 Cost Study Manual Executive Summary This Cost Study Manual documents the procedures for preparing a Cost Study to compare the cost of a contractor's employee benefits to the industry average from a broad-based national benefit cost survey. The annual Employee Benefits Cost Study Comparison (Cost Study) assists with the analysis of contractors' employee benefits costs. The Contracting Officer (CO) may require corrective action when the average benefit per capita cost or the benefit cost as a

  13. 2010 Cost of Wind Energy Review

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tegen, S.; Hand, M.; Maples, B.; Lantz, E.; Schwabe, P.; Smith, A.

    2012-04-01

    This document provides a detailed description of NREL's levelized cost of wind energy equation, assumptions, and results in 2010, including historical cost trends and future projections for land-based and offshore utility-scale wind.

  14. 2010 Cost of Wind Energy Review

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tegen, S.; Hand, M.; Maples, B.; Lantz, E.; Schwabe, P.; Smith, A.

    2012-04-01

    This document provides a detailed description of NREL's levelized cost of wind energy equation, assumptions and results in 2010, including historical cost trends and future projections for land-based and offshore utility-scale wind.

  15. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Pub

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    In all the AEO2015 cases, emissions remain below the 2005 level of 5,993 million mt. As noted above, the AEO2015 cases do not assume implementation of EPA's proposed Clean Power ...

  16. Pathways to Low-Cost Electrochemical Energy Storage: A Comparison...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    September 16, 2014, Research Highlights Pathways to Low-Cost Electrochemical Energy Storage: A ... First comprehensive determination of materials to system level performance and cost ...

  17. Energy Cost Calculator for Electric and Gas Water Heaters | Department...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Electric and Gas Water Heaters Energy Cost Calculator for Electric and Gas Water Heaters Vary equipment size, energy cost, hours of operation, and or efficiency level. INPUT ...

  18. 2013 Cost of Wind Energy Review

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mone, C.; Smith, A.; Maples, B.; Hand, M.

    2015-02-01

    This report uses representative project types to estimate the levelized cost of wind energy (LCOE) in the United States for 2013. Scheduled to be published on an annual basis, it relies on both market and modeled data to maintain a current understanding of wind generation cost trends and drivers. It is intended to provide insight into current component-level costs and a basis for understanding current component-level costs and a basis for understanding variability in the LCOE across the industry. Data and tools developed from this analysis are used to inform wind technology cost projections, goals, and improvement opportunities.

  19. PAFC Cost Challenges

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    PAFC Cost Challenges Sridhar Kanuri Manager, PAFC Technology *Sridhar.Kanuri@utcpower.com 2 AGENDA Purecell® 400 cost challenge Cost reduction opportunities Summary 3 PURECELL ® FUEL CELL SYSTEM First cost 2010 cost reduction is being accomplished by incremental changes in technology & low cost sourcing Technology advances are required to reduce further cost and attain UTC Power's commercialization targets 2010 First unit 2010 Last unit Commercialization target Powerplant cost 4

  20. Renewable Portfolio Standards: Costs and Benefits (Poster)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bird, L.; Heeter, J.; Barbose, G.; Weaver, S.; Flores, F.; Kuskova-Burns, K.; Wiser, R.

    2014-10-01

    This report summarizes state-level RPS costs to date, and considers how those costs may evolve going forward given scheduled increases in RPS targets and cost containment mechanisms. The report also summarizes RPS benefits estimates, based on published studies for individual states and discusses key methodological considerations.

  1. Cost Model and Cost Estimating Software

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    1997-03-28

    This chapter discusses a formalized methodology is basically a cost model, which forms the basis for estimating software.

  2. Electric power substation capital costs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dagle, J.E.; Brown, D.R.

    1997-12-01

    The displacement or deferral of substation equipment is a key benefit associated with several technologies that are being developed with the support of the US Department of Energy`s Office of Utility Technologies. This could occur, for example, as a result of installing a distributed generating resource within an electricity distribution system. The objective of this study was to develop a model for preparing preliminary estimates of substation capital costs based on rudimentary conceptual design information. The model is intended to be used by energy systems analysts who need ``ballpark`` substation cost estimates to help establish the value of advanced utility technologies that result in the deferral or displacement of substation equipment. This cost-estimating model requires only minimal inputs. More detailed cost-estimating approaches are recommended when more detailed design information is available. The model was developed by collecting and evaluating approximately 20 sets of substation design and cost data from about 10 US sources, including federal power marketing agencies and private and public electric utilities. The model is principally based on data provided by one of these sources. Estimates prepared with the model were compared with estimated and actual costs for the data sets received from the other utilities. In general, good agreement (for conceptual level estimating) was found between estimates prepared with the cost-estimating model and those prepared by the individual utilities. Thus, the model was judged to be adequate for making preliminary estimates of typical substation costs for US utilities.

  3. Cost Analysis: Technology, Competitiveness, Market Uncertainty | Department

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    of Energy Technology to Market » Cost Analysis: Technology, Competitiveness, Market Uncertainty Cost Analysis: Technology, Competitiveness, Market Uncertainty As a basis for strategic planning, competitiveness analysis, funding metrics and targets, SunShot supports analysis teams at national laboratories to assess technology costs, location-specific competitive advantages, policy impacts on system financing, and to perform detailed levelized cost of energy (LCOE) analyses. This shows the

  4. Workplace Charging Equipment and Installation Costs | Department...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Charging equipment costs depend on the type of charging station you decide to install in your workplace. Level 1 (300-1,500) and Level 2 (400-6,500) charging stations are ...

  5. Activity Based Costing

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    1997-03-28

    Activity Based Costing (ABC) is method for developing cost estimates in which the project is subdivided into discrete, quantifiable activities or a work unit. This chapter outlines the Activity Based Costing method and discusses applicable uses of ABC.

  6. Concentrating Solar Power: Concentrating Optics for Lower Levelized...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Concentrating Solar Power: Concentrating Optics for Lower Levelized Energy Costs (CSP: COLLECTS) Concentrating Solar Power: Concentrating Optics for Lower Levelized Energy Costs ...

  7. Cellulosic Ethanol Cost Target

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Plenary Talk May 21, 2013 Cellulosic Ethanol Cost Target 2 | Biomass Program ... "Our goal is to make cellulosic ethanol practical and cost competitive within 6 ...

  8. Development of surface mine cost estimating equations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-09-26

    Cost estimating equations were developed to determine capital and operating costs for five surface coal mine models in Central Appalachia, Northern Appalachia, Mid-West, Far-West, and Campbell County, Wyoming. Engineering equations were used to estimate equipment costs for the stripping function and for the coal loading and hauling function for the base case mine and for several mines with different annual production levels and/or different overburden removal requirements. Deferred costs were then determined through application of the base case depreciation schedules, and direct labor costs were easily established once the equipment quantities (and, hence, manpower requirements) were determined. The data points were then fit with appropriate functional forms, and these were then multiplied by appropriate adjustment factors so that the resulting equations yielded the model mine costs for initial and deferred capital and annual operating cost. (The validity of this scaling process is based on the assumption that total initial and deferred capital costs are proportional to the initial and deferred costs for the primary equipment types that were considered and that annual operating cost is proportional to the direct labor costs that were determined based on primary equipment quantities.) Initial capital costs ranged from $3,910,470 in Central Appalachia to $49,296,785; deferred capital costs ranged from $3,220,000 in Central Appalachia to $30,735,000 in Campbell County, Wyoming; and annual operating costs ranged from $2,924,148 in Central Appalachia to $32,708,591 in Campbell County, Wyoming. (DMC)

  9. Table 3b. Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil, Projected...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    AEO 1994 17.06 17.21 18.24 19.43 20.64 22.12 23.76 25.52 27.51 29.67 31.86 34.00 36.05 38.36 40.78 43.29 45.88 48.37 AEO 1995 15.24 17.27 18.23 19.26 20.39 21.59 22.97 24.33 25.79 ...

  10. Electricity Generation Cost Simulation Model

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2003-04-25

    The Electricity Generation Cost Simulation Model (GENSIM) is a user-friendly, high-level dynamic simulation model that calculates electricity production costs for variety of electricity generation technologies, including: pulverized coal, gas combustion turbine, gas combined cycle, nuclear, solar (PV and thermal), and wind. The model allows the user to quickly conduct sensitivity analysis on key variables, including: capital, O&M, and fuel costs; interest rates; construction time; heat rates; and capacity factors. The model also includes consideration ofmore » a wide range of externality costs and pollution control options for carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury. Two different data sets are included in the model; one from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the other from Platt's Research Group. Likely users of this model include executives and staff in the Congress, the Administration and private industry (power plant builders, industrial electricity users and electric utilities). The model seeks to improve understanding of the economic viability of various generating technologies and their emission trade-offs. The base case results using the DOE data, indicate that in the absence of externality costs, or renewable tax credits, pulverized coal and gas combined cycle plants are the least cost alternatives at 3.7 and 3.5 cents/kwhr, respectively. A complete sensitivity analysis on fuel, capital, and construction time shows that these results coal and gas are much more sensitive to assumption about fuel prices than they are to capital costs or construction times. The results also show that making nuclear competitive with coal or gas requires significant reductions in capital costs, to the $1000/kW level, if no other changes are made. For renewables, the results indicate that wind is now competitive with the nuclear option and is only competitive with coal and gas for grid connected applications if one includes the federal production tax