National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for nuclear environment total

  1. PIA - Savannah River Nuclear Solution SRNS ProRad Environment...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    SRNS ProRad Environment Management PIA - Savannah River Nuclear Solution SRNS ProRad Environment Management PIA - Savannah River Nuclear Solution SRNS ProRad Environment Management ...

  2. THE ENVIRONMENT CREATED BY A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN SALT. Project...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    THE ENVIRONMENT CREATED BY A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN SALT. Project GNOME Citation Details In-Document Search Title: THE ENVIRONMENT CREATED BY A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN SALT. Project ...

  3. environment | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    environment Pantex makes paper into compost Every year, NNSA's Pantex Plant uses thousands of pounds of paper that must be destroyed to protect sensitive information. For the vast majority of that paper, a trip through the shredder is not the end of its purpose, but only a beginning. After spending a few weeks composting in a pile of feedlot... DOE celebrates Earth Day DOE today celebrated Earth Day with Community Day on the DOE Pavilion. More than 20 local green exhibitors, including various

  4. Nuclear astrophysics in a q-environment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coraddu, M.; Quarati, P.; Scarfone, A. M.

    2007-12-06

    Fluctuations and dynamical collisions can be responsible of non standard distributions observed in many astrophysical environments or astrophysical plasmas. In fact, since Coulomb collisions are the means to achieve equilibrium, plasmas are typically not in global thermodynamic equilibrium. We examine three different and linked problems whose solution is needed to determine parameters concerning evolution through metastable states of stars and other astrophysical systems: role of temperature and density fluctuation, electron screening of nuclear reactions and penetrability, evolution and comparison of different collision frequencies to establish the degree of deviation from the global thermodynamic equilibrium usually assumed. We indicate how these problems should be treated in a generalized environment by means of the q-generalized statistics and evaluate the collision frequencies, confirming that deviations from a global equilibrium cannot be neglected in these systems.

  5. Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases PropanePropylene Normal ButaneButylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Other ...

  6. Total

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

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases PropanePropylene Normal ButaneButylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Fuel ...

  7. Total..........................................................

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

    0.9 Q Q Q Heat Pump......7.7 0.3 Q Q Steam or Hot Water System......Census Division Total West Energy Information Administration ...

  8. Total..........................................................

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

    0.9 Q Q Q Heat Pump......6.2 3.8 2.4 Steam or Hot Water System......Census Division Total Northeast Energy Information ...

  9. Total..........................................................................

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

    . 111.1 20.6 15.1 5.5 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 4.6 3.6 1.1 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 2.8 2.2 0.6 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 1.9 1.4 0.5 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.3 1.7 0.5 2,500 to

  10. Total..........................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.5 0.3 Q 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 3.9 2.4 1.5 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 4.4 3.2 1.2 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 3.5 2.4 1.1 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 3.2 2.1 1.1 2,500 to

  11. Total..........................................................................

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

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.6 Q Q 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 9.0 4.2 1.5 3.2 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 8.6 4.7 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 6.0 2.9 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 4.1 2.1 0.7

  12. PIA - Savannah River Nuclear Solution SRNS ProRad Environment Management |

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

    Department of Energy SRNS ProRad Environment Management PIA - Savannah River Nuclear Solution SRNS ProRad Environment Management PIA - Savannah River Nuclear Solution SRNS ProRad Environment Management PIA - Savannah River Nuclear Solution SRNS ProRad Environment Management (3.45 MB) More Documents & Publications PIA - Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) Human Resource Management System (HRMS) PIA - Savannah River Nuclear Solution (SRNS) Procurement Cycle System (PCS) PIA - Savannah

  13. Total................................................

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

    .. 111.1 86.6 2,522 1,970 1,310 1,812 1,475 821 1,055 944 554 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................. 3.2 0.9 261 336 162 Q Q Q 334 260 Q 500 to 999.................................... 23.8 9.4 670 683 320 705 666 274 811 721 363 1,000 to 1,499.............................. 20.8 15.0 1,121 1,083 622 1,129 1,052 535 1,228 1,090 676 1,500 to 1,999.............................. 15.4 14.4 1,574 1,450 945 1,628 1,327 629 1,712 1,489 808 2,000 to

  14. Total..........................................................

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

    .. 111.1 24.5 1,090 902 341 872 780 441 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500...................................... 3.1 2.3 403 360 165 366 348 93 500 to 999.............................................. 22.2 14.4 763 660 277 730 646 303 1,000 to 1,499........................................ 19.1 5.8 1,223 1,130 496 1,187 1,086 696 1,500 to 1,999........................................ 14.4 1.0 1,700 1,422 412 1,698 1,544 1,348 2,000 to 2,499........................................ 12.7

  15. Total...................................................................

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

    Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500............................................ 3.2 0.4 Q 0.6 1.7 0.4 500 to 999................................................... 23.8 4.8 1.4 4.2 10.2 3.2 1,000 to 1,499............................................. 20.8 10.6 1.8 1.8 4.0 2.6 1,500 to 1,999............................................. 15.4 12.4 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 2,000 to 2,499............................................. 12.2 10.7 1.0 0.2 Q Q 2,500 to

  16. Total.........................................................................

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

    Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 2 Fewer than 500.................................................. 3.2 Q 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 500 to 999.......................................................... 23.8 1.5 5.4 5.5 6.1 5.3 1,000 to 1,499.................................................... 20.8 1.4 4.0 5.2 5.0 5.2 1,500 to 1,999.................................................... 15.4 1.4 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.8 2,000 to 2,499.................................................... 12.2 1.4 3.2 3.0 2.3 2.3

  17. Total..........................................................................

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

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.0 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 4.6 3.9 9.0 6.3 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 2.8 4.4 8.6 5.0 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 1.9 3.5 6.0 4.0 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.3 3.2 4.1

  18. Total..........................................................................

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

    7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.4 Q Q 0.5 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 2.5 1.5 2.1 3.7 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 1.1 2.0 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.4

  19. Total...........................................................

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

    14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500.................................... 3.2 0.7 Q 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 Q 500 to 999........................................... 23.8 2.7 1.4 2.2 2.8 5.5 5.1 3.0 1.1 1,000 to 1,499..................................... 20.8 2.3 1.4 2.4 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 1.6 1,500 to 1,999..................................... 15.4 1.8 1.4 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.2 2,000 to 2,499..................................... 12.2 1.4 0.9

  20. Public perspectives of nuclear weapons in the post-cold war environment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jenkins-Smith, H.C.; Herron, K.G.; Barke, R.P.

    1994-04-01

    This report summarizes the findings of a nationwide survey of public perceptions of nuclear weapons in the post-cold war environment. Participants included 1,301 members of the general public, 1,155 randomly selected members of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and 1,226 employees randomly selected from the technical staffs of four DOE national laboratories. A majority of respondents from all three samples perceived the post-cold war security environment to pose increased likelihood of nuclear war, nuclear proliferation, and nuclear terrorism. Public perceptions of nuclear weapons threats, risks, utilities, and benefits were found to systematically affect nuclear weapons policy preferences in predictable ways. Highly significant relationships were also found between public trust and nuclear weapons policy preferences. As public trust and official government information about nuclear weapons increased, perceptions of nuclear weapons management risks decreased and perceptions of nuclear weapons utilities and benefits increased. A majority of respondents favored decreasing funding for: (1) developing and testing new nuclear weapons; (2) maintaining existing nuclear weapons, and (3) maintaining the ability to develop and improve nuclear weapons. Substantial support was found among all three groups for increasing funding for: (1) enhancing nuclear weapons safety; (2) training nuclear weapons personnel; (3) preventing nuclear proliferation; and (4) preventing nuclear terrorism. Most respondents considered nuclear weapons to be a persistent feature of the post-cold war security environment.

  1. Nuclear Power and the Environment - Energy Explained, Your Guide...

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

    and Exports How Much Coal Is Left Use of Coal Prices ... Unlike fossil fuel-fired power plants, nuclear reactors do ... the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from ...

  2. Irradiation of Microbes from Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Pool Environments

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Breckenridge, C.R.; Watkins, C.S.; Bruhn, D.F.; Roberto, F.F.; Tsang, M.N.; Pinhero, P.J.; Brey, R.F.; Wright, R.N.; Windes, W.F.

    1999-09-03

    Microbes have been isolated and identified from spent nuclear fuel storage pools at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Included among these are Corynebacterium aquaticum, Pseudomonas putida, Comamonas acidovorans, Gluconobacter cerinus, Micrococcus diversus, Rhodococcus rhodochrous, and two strains of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). We examined the sensitivity of these microbes to a variety of total exposures of radiation generated by a 6-MeV linear accelerator (LINAC). The advantage of using a LINAC is that it provides a relatively quick screen of radiation tolerance. In the first set of experiments, we exposed each of the aforementioned microbes along with four additional microbes, pseudomonas aeruginosa, Micrococcus luteus, Escherchia coli, and Deinococcus radiodurans to exposures of 5 x 10{sup 3} and 6 x 10{sup 4} rad. All microbial specimens withstood the lower exposure with little or no reduction in cell population. Upon exposing the microbes to the larger dose of 6 x 10{sup 4} rad, we observed two distinct groupings: microbes that demonstrate resistance to radiation, and microbes that display intolerance through a dramatic reduction from their initial population. Microbes in the radiation tolerant grouping were exposed to 1.1 x 10{sup 5} rad to examine the extent of their resistance. We observe a correlation between radiation resistance and gram stain. The gram-positive species we examined seem to demonstrate a greater radiation resistance.

  3. Concern for the Environment | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    over 14,000 sailors, the Department of Energy S1C Prototype Reactor Site in Windsor, Connecticut, was returned to "green field" conditions. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program...

  4. Development of a Total Energy, Environment and Asset Management (TE2AM tm) Curriculum

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2012-12-31

    The University of Wisconsin Department of Engineering Professional Development (EPD) has completed the sponsored project entitled, Development of a Total Energy, Environment and Asset Management (TE2AM™) Curriculum. The project involved the development of a structured professional development program to improve the knowledge, skills, capabilities, and competencies of engineers and operators of commercial buildings. TE2AM™ advances a radically different approach to commercial building design, operation, maintenance, and end-­‐of-­‐life disposition. By employing asset management principles to the lifecycle of a commercial building, owners and occupants will realize improved building performance, reduced energy consumption and positive environmental impacts. Through our commercialization plan, we intend to offer TE2AM™ courses and certificates to the professional community and continuously improve TE2AM™ course materials. The TE2AM™ project supports the DOE Strategic Theme 1 -­‐ Energy Security; and will further advance the DOE Strategic Goal 1.4 Energy Productivity. Through participation in the TE2AM™ curriculum, engineers and operators of commercial buildings will be eligible for a professional certificate; denoting the completion of a prescribed series of learning activities. The project involved a comprehensive, rigorous approach to curriculum development, and accomplished the following goals: 1. Identify, analyze and prioritize key learning needs of engineers, architects and technical professionals as operators of commercial buildings. 2. Design and develop TE2AM™ curricula and instructional strategies to meet learning needs of the target learning community. 3. Establish partnerships with the sponsor and key stakeholders to enhance the development and delivery of learning programs. 4. Successfully commercialize and sustain the training and certificate programs for a substantial time following the term of the award. The project team was

  5. Nucleus-nucleus total reaction cross sections, and the nuclear interaction radius

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Abu-Ibrahim, Badawy

    2011-04-15

    We study the nucleus-nucleus total reaction cross sections for stable nuclei, in the energy region from 30A MeV to about 1A GeV, and find them to be in proportion to ({radical}({sigma}{sub pp}{sup tot}Z{sub 1}{sup 2/3}+{sigma}{sub pn}{sup tot}N{sub 1}{sup 2/3})+{radical}({sigma}{sub pp}{sup tot}Z{sub 2}{sup 2/3}+{sigma}{sub pn}{sup tot}N{sub 2}{sup 2/3})) {sup 2} in the mass range 8 to 100. Also, we find a parameter-free relation that enables us to predict a total reaction cross section for any nucleus-nucleus within 10% uncertainty at most, using the experimental value of the total reaction cross section of a given nucleus-nucleus. The power of the relation is demonstrated by several examples. The energy dependence of the nuclear interaction radius is deduced; it is found to be almost constant in the energy range from about 200A MeV to about 1A GeV; in this energy range and for nuclei with N=Z, R{sub I}(A)=(1.14{+-}0.02)A{sup 1/3} fm.

  6. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Parametric Modeling of Integrated Reactor Vessel Manufacturing Within a Factory Environment- Volume 2

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Parametric Modeling of Integrated Reactor Vessel Manufacturing Within a Factory Environment - Volume 2 August 2013

  7. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Parametric Modeling of Integrated Reactor Vessel Manufacturing Within a Factory Environment- Volume 1

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Parametric Modeling of Integrated Reactor Vessel Manufacturing Within a Factory Environment - Volume 1 August 2013

  8. Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and DOE’s Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and DOE’s Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security.

  9. Computational Systems & Software Environment | National Nuclear Security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Administration | (NNSA) Computational Systems & Software Environment The mission of this national sub-program is to build integrated, balanced, and scalable computational capabilities to meet the predictive simulation requirements of NNSA. This sub-program strives to provide users of ASC computing resources a stable and seamless computing environment for all ASC-deployed platforms. Along with these powerful systems that ASC will maintain and field the supporting software infrastructure

  10. Evolution of the Business Environment Surrounding the UK's Nuclear Site Cleanup Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Miskimin, P.A.; Lees, P.M.; Wall, C.E.E.

    2006-07-01

    In April 2005 twenty civil nuclear sites in the United Kingdom became the responsibility of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), a new organization created by the British Government to manage the cleanup of these sites. As a key part of this transition, the NDA became the owner and manager of these sites, which formerly were owned by the site operators, British Nuclear Fuels Limited plc (BNFL) and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). This was one of the most significant events in the history of the United Kingdom's nuclear industry and represented a true sea change, affecting many aspects of life and business on and around these sites as well as nationally. The NDA's budget for the cleanup of the twenty sites and the management of the overall cleanup program is approximately pounds 2 Billion per annum, almost $4 Billion. It is important to note that approximately half of this amount is spent with the supply chains which serve the management and operations contractors, including pounds 500 million at Sellafield alone. Additionally, the site management and operations contractors receive most of the pounds 2 Billion through contracts between the NDA and the various site management companies. This represents a lot of government money moving through contracts between entities, which invokes procurement and contracting rules and regulations, that while not new, have not previously been this broadly applied to nuclear site cleanup activities throughout the UK. The current estimate for the total life cycle cleanup costs for all twenty civil nuclear sites is pounds 56 Billion, a figure that is likely to increase further. The first rules to mention are the European Union Procurement Guidelines, which are designed to help ensure that procurements involving government funds are conducted in an open, fair, and transparent environment. While it is difficult to argue with the intent of these rules, at least for now they are having a slowing down effect on

  11. Nuclear waste package materials testing report: basaltic and tuffaceous environments

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bradley, D.J.; Coles, D.G.; Hodges, F.N.; McVay, G.L.; Westerman, R.E.

    1983-03-01

    The disposal of high-level nuclear wastes in underground repositories in the continental United States requires the development of a waste package that will contain radionuclides for a time period commensurate with performance criteria, which may be up to 1000 years. This report addresses materials testing in support of a waste package for a basalt (Hanford, Washington) or a tuff (Nevada Test Site) repository. The materials investigated in this testing effort were: sodium and calcium bentonites and mixtures with sand or basalt as a backfill; iron and titanium-based alloys as structural barriers; and borosilicate waste glass PNL 76-68 as a waste form. The testing also incorporated site-specific rock media and ground waters: Reference Umtanum Entablature-1 basalt and reference basalt ground water, Bullfrog tuff and NTS J-13 well water. The results of the testing are discussed in four major categories: Backfill Materials: emphasizing water migration, radionuclide migration, physical property and long-term stability studies. Structural Barriers: emphasizing uniform corrosion, irradiation-corrosion, and environmental-mechanical testing. Waste Form Release Characteristics: emphasizing ground water, sample surface area/solution volume ratio, and gamma radiolysis effects. Component Compatibility: emphasizing solution/rock, glass/rock, glass/structural barrier, and glass/backfill interaction tests. This area also includes sensitivity testing to determine primary parameters to be studied, and the results of systems tests where more than two waste package components were combined during a single test.

  12. NEAMS Nuclear Waste Management IPSC : evaluation and selection of tools for the quality environment.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bouchard, Julie F.; Stubblefield, William Anthony; Vigil, Dena M.; Edwards, Harold Carter (Org. 1444 : Multiphysics Simulation Technology)

    2011-05-01

    The objective of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation Nuclear Waste Management Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (NEAMS Nuclear Waste Management IPSC) is to provide an integrated suite of computational modeling and simulation (M&S) capabilities to quantitatively assess the long-term performance of waste forms in the engineered and geologic environments of a radioactive-waste storage facility or disposal repository. These M&S capabilities are to be managed, verified, and validated within the NEAMS Nuclear Waste Management IPSC quality environment. M&S capabilities and the supporting analysis workflow and simulation data management tools will be distributed to end-users from this same quality environment. The same analysis workflow and simulation data management tools that are to be distributed to end-users will be used for verification and validation (V&V) activities within the quality environment. This strategic decision reduces the number of tools to be supported, and increases the quality of tools distributed to end users due to rigorous use by V&V activities. This report documents an evaluation of the needs, options, and tools selected for the NEAMS Nuclear Waste Management IPSC quality environment. The objective of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation Nuclear Waste Management Integrated Performance and Safety Codes (NEAMS Nuclear Waste Management IPSC) program element is to provide an integrated suite of computational modeling and simulation (M&S) capabilities to assess quantitatively the long-term performance of waste forms in the engineered and geologic environments of a radioactive-waste storage facility or disposal repository. This objective will be fulfilled by acquiring and developing M&S capabilities, and establishing a defensible level of confidence in these M&S capabilities. The foundation for assessing the level of confidence is based upon

  13. Variabilities in the natural and nuclear endoatmospheric environment. Final report, October 1990-December 1991

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bauer, E.

    1992-04-01

    This document supplements a briefing on Uncertainties in the Prediction of High-Altitude Nuclear Effects. The intended audience consists of the SDS architects and engagement modelers who have to consider the nuclear (and other) environment but are under very severe constraints regarding computer running time so that very fast-running and thus simple models of atmospheric environment have been used. This material is a tutorial, intended to give the audience a physical feeling of the nature of the natural and nuclear endoenvironment (i.e., environments and heights of burst in the 0-100-km altitude range), pointing out the changes in nuclear phenomenology at different altitudes and the large variabilities in the natural atmosphere, including effects of turbulence, clouds, and rain. The factors to be considered for SDS modeling depend on the threat scenario under consideration, such as the number, altitude and yield of the nuclear bursts, and the nature of sensors under consideration (IR, UV/VIS, MMW; spectral and spatial resolution; sensitivity; active vs. passive sensors).

  14. New Opportunity for Improved Nuclear Forensics, Radiochemical Diagnostics, and Nuclear Astrophysics: Need for a Total-Cross-Section Apparatus at the LANSCE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koehler, Paul E.; Hayes-Sterbenz, Anna C.; Bredeweg, Todd Allen; Couture, Aaron J.; Engle, Jonathan; Keksis, August L.; Nortier, Francois M.; Ullmann, John L.

    2014-03-12

    Total-cross-section measurements are feasible on a much wider range of radioactive samples than (n,?) cross-section measurements, and information extracted from the former can be used to set tight constraints on the latter. There are many (n,?) cross sections of great interest to radiochemical diagnostics, nuclear forensics, and nuclear astrophysics which are beyond the reach of current direct measurement, that could be obtained in this way. Our simulations indicate that measurements can be made at the Manuel Lujan Jr. Neutron Scattering Center at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center for samples as small as 10?g. There are at least 40 high-interest nuclides which should be measurable, including 88Y,167,168,170,171Tm, 173,174Lu, and189,190,192Ir.

  15. Nuclear EMP simulation for large-scale urban environments. FDTD for electrically large problems.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, William S.; Bull, Jeffrey S.; Wilcox, Trevor; Bos, Randall J.; Shao, Xuan-Min; Goorley, John T.; Costigan, Keeley R.

    2012-08-13

    In case of a terrorist nuclear attack in a metropolitan area, EMP measurement could provide: (1) a prompt confirmation of the nature of the explosion (chemical or nuclear) for emergency response; and (2) and characterization parameters of the device (reaction history, yield) for technical forensics. However, urban environment could affect the fidelity of the prompt EMP measurement (as well as all other types of prompt measurement): (1) Nuclear EMP wavefront would no longer be coherent, due to incoherent production, attenuation, and propagation of gamma and electrons; and (2) EMP propagation from source region outward would undergo complicated transmission, reflection, and diffraction processes. EMP simulation for electrically-large urban environment: (1) Coupled MCNP/FDTD (Finite-difference time domain Maxwell solver) approach; and (2) FDTD tends to be limited to problems that are not 'too' large compared to the wavelengths of interest because of numerical dispersion and anisotropy. We use a higher-order low-dispersion, isotropic FDTD algorithm for EMP propagation.

  16. Nuclides.net: A Web-Based Environment for Nuclear Data and Applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Galy, J.; Magill, J.

    2005-05-24

    An interactive multimedia tool, Nuclides.net, has been developed at the Institute for Transuranium Elements. The Nuclides.net 'integrated environment' is a suite of computer programs ranging from a powerful user-friendly interface, which allows the user to navigate the nuclides chart and explore the properties of nuclides, to various computational modules. Through this powerful interface, the user can access a wide variety of nuclear data including, e.g., radioactive decay data, cross sections, fission yields, etc. from international recognized sources.

  17. Environment

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

    Video News Room News Releases Environment newsroomassetsimagesenvi-icon.png Earth, Environment Climate impacts, including global temperatures, drought and forest fires ...

  18. Expected environments in high-level nuclear waste and spent fuel repositories in salt

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Claiborne, H.C.; Rickertsen, L.D., Graham, R.F.

    1980-08-01

    The purpose of this report is to describe the expected environments associated with high-level waste (HLW) and spent fuel (SF) repositories in salt formations. These environments include the thermal, fluid, pressure, brine chemistry, and radiation fields predicted for the repository conceptual designs. In this study, it is assumed that the repository will be a room and pillar mine in a rock-salt formation, with the disposal horizon located approx. 2000 ft (610 m) below the surface of the earth. Canistered waste packages containing HLW in a solid matrix or SF elements are emplaced in vertical holes in the floor of the rooms. The emplacement holes are backfilled with crushed salt or other material and sealed at some later time. Sensitivity studies are presented to show the effect of changing the areal heat load, the canister heat load, the barrier material and thickness, ventilation of the storage room, and adding a second row to the emplacement configuration. The calculated thermal environment is used as input for brine migration calculations. The vapor and gas pressure will gradually attain the lithostatic pressure in a sealed repository. In the unlikely event that an emplacement hole will become sealed in relatively early years, the vapor space pressure was calculated for three scenarios (i.e., no hole closure - no backfill, no hole closure - backfill, and hole closure - no backfill). It was assumed that the gas in the system consisted of air and water vapor in equilibrium with brine. A computer code (REPRESS) was developed assuming that these changes occur slowly (equilibrium conditions). The brine chemical environment is outlined in terms of brine chemistry, corrosion, and compositions. The nuclear radiation environment emphasized in this report is the stored energy that can be released as a result of radiation damage or crystal dislocations within crystal lattices.

  19. Composite Materials under Extreme Radiation and Temperature Environments of the Next Generation Nuclear Reactors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Simos, N.

    2011-05-01

    In the nuclear energy renaissance, driven by fission reactor concepts utilizing very high temperatures and fast neutron spectra, materials with enhanced performance that exceeds are expected to play a central role. With the operating temperatures of the Generation III reactors bringing the classical reactor materials close to their performance limits there is an urgent need to develop and qualify new alloys and composites. Efforts have been focused on the intricate relations and the high demands placed on materials at the anticipated extreme states within the next generation fusion and fission reactors which combine high radiation fluxes, elevated temperatures and aggressive environments. While nuclear reactors have been in operation for several decades, the structural materials associated with the next generation options need to endure much higher temperatures (1200 C), higher neutron doses (tens of displacements per atom, dpa), and extremely corrosive environments, which are beyond the experience on materials accumulated to-date. The most important consideration is the performance and reliability of structural materials for both in-core and out-of-core functions. While there exists a great body of nuclear materials research and operating experience/performance from fission reactors where epithermal and thermal neutrons interact with materials and alter their physio-mechanical properties, a process that is well understood by now, there are no operating or even experimental facilities that will facilitate the extreme conditions of flux and temperature anticipated and thus provide insights into the behaviour of these well understood materials. Materials, however, still need to be developed and their interaction and damage potential or lifetime to be quantified for the next generation nuclear energy. Based on material development advances, composites, and in particular ceramic composites, seem to inherently possess properties suitable for key functions within the

  20. Underground Infrastructure Impacts Due to a Surface Burst Nuclear Device in an Urban Canyon Environment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bos, Randall J.; Dey, Thomas N.; Runnels, Scott R.

    2012-07-03

    Investigation of the effects of a nuclear device exploded in a urban environment such as the Chicago studied for this particular report have shown the importance on the effects from the urban canyons so typical of today's urban environment as compared to nuclear test event effects observed at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and the Pacific Testing Area on which many of the typical legacy empirical codes are based on. This report first looks at the some of the data from nuclear testing that can give an indication of the damage levels that might be experienced due to a nuclear event. While it is well known that a above ground blast, even a ground burst, very poorly transmits energy into the ground ( < 1%) and the experimental results discussed here are for fully coupled detonations, these results do indicate a useful measure of the damage that might be expected. The second part of the report looks at effects of layering of different materials that typically would make up the near ground below surface environment that a shock would propagate through. As these simulations support and is widely known in the community, the effects of different material compositions in these layers modify the shock behavior and especially modify the energy dispersal and coupling into the basement structures. The third part of the report looks at the modification of the underground shock effects from a surface burst 1 KT device due to the presence of basements under the Chicago buildings. Without direct knowledge of the basement structure, a simulated footprint of a uniform 20m depth was assumed underneath each of the NGI defined buildings in the above ground environment. In the above ground case, the underground basement structures channel the energy along the line of site streets keeping the shock levels from falling off as rapidly as has been observed in unobstructed detonations. These simulations indicate a falloff of factors of 2 per scaled length as compared to 10 for the unobstructed

  1. environment

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    history-over 5,900 reactor years of operation and more than 139 million miles steamed on nuclear power-there has never been a reactor accident, nor any release of radioactivity...

  2. Environment

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

    Environment Environment Events Learn about our science, listen to lectures on environment and climate change at the Bradbury Science Museum or at Cafe Scientific events in your community. Oct 14 Wed 4:00 PM Laboratory's Electronic Public Reading room training J. Robert Oppenheimer Study Center, Room JRO 1&2 - West Jemez Road at Casa Grande The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS), are holding training on the contents and use of the Los Alamos National

  3. Environment

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

    Environment Environment A repository for images showing environmental cleanup and protection efforts around the Lab. News Releases Science Briefs Photos Picture of the Week Publications Social Media Videos Fact Sheets PHOTOS BY TOPIC Careers Community Visitors Environment History Science The Lab Click thumbnails to enlarge. Photos arranged by most recent first, horizontal formats before vertical. See Flickr for more sizes and details. Workers sample contents of LANL's Material Disposal Area B

  4. Guidelines for protecting the geological environment during the construction of nuclear power plants in the Ukrainian SSR

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yakovlev, E.A.

    1986-05-01

    The 11th Five-Year Plan calls for virtually the entire increment in the production of electrical energy in the European part of the Soviet Union to come from nuclear plants. Nuclear energy will be developed particularly rapidly in the Ukraine. In the regional plan, this republic is marked by the highest level of industrialization in the country, which means that technologic factors have a profound effect on the geological environment and natural processes. The principal factor in technology-induced change of the hydrogeological and engineering-geological conditions in the Ukraine has been a regional change in the water balance of the region. The hydrology and the economic environment of this region is discussed. Six types of investigations are recommended in regions where nuclear energy undertakings are to be located. These geological investigations are briefly described.

  5. Experiments and Theoretical Data for Studying the Impact of Fission Yield Uncertainties on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle with TALYS/GEF and the Total Monte Carlo Method

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pomp, S.; Al-Adili, A.; Alhassan, E.; Gustavsson, C.; Helgesson, P.; Hellesen, C.; Koning, A.J.; Lantz, M.; Österlund, M.; Rochman, D.; Simutkin, V.; Sjöstrand, H.; Solders, A.

    2015-01-15

    We describe the research program of the nuclear reactions research group at Uppsala University concerning experimental and theoretical efforts to quantify and reduce nuclear data uncertainties relevant for the nuclear fuel cycle. We briefly describe the Total Monte Carlo (TMC) methodology and how it can be used to study fuel cycle and accident scenarios, and summarize our relevant experimental activities. Input from the latter is to be used to guide the nuclear models and constrain parameter space for TMC. The TMC method relies on the availability of good nuclear models. For this we use the TALYS code which is currently being extended to include the GEF model for the fission channel. We present results from TALYS-1.6 using different versions of GEF with both default and randomized input parameters and compare calculations with experimental data for {sup 234}U(n,f) in the fast energy range. These preliminary studies reveal some systematic differences between experimental data and calculations but give overall good and promising results.

  6. Public views on multiple dimensions of security : nuclear waepons, terrorism, energy, and the environment : 2007.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Herron, Kerry Gale; Jenkins-Smith, Hank C.

    2008-01-01

    We analyze and compare findings from identical national surveys of the US general public on nuclear security and terrorism administered by telephone and Internet in mid-2007. Key areas of investigation include assessments of threats to US security; valuations of US nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence; perspectives on nuclear proliferation, including the specific cases of North Korea and Iran; and support for investments in nuclear weapons capabilities. Our analysis of public views on terrorism include assessments of the current threat, progress in the struggle against terrorism, preferences for responding to terrorist attacks at different levels of assumed casualties, and support for domestic policies intended to reduce the threat of terrorism. Also we report findings from an Internet survey conducted in mid 2007 that investigates public views of US energy security, to include: energy supplies and reliability; energy vulnerabilities and threats, and relationships among security, costs, energy dependence, alternative sources, and research and investment priorities. We analyze public assessments of nuclear energy risks and benefits, nuclear materials management issues, and preferences for the future of nuclear energy in the US. Additionally, we investigate environmental issues as they relate to energy security, to include expected implications of global climate change, and relationships among environmental issues and potential policy options.

  7. “Full Model” Nuclear Data and Covariance Evaluation Process Using TALYS, Total Monte Carlo and Backward-forward Monte Carlo

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bauge, E.

    2015-01-15

    The “Full model” evaluation process, that is used in CEA DAM DIF to evaluate nuclear data in the continuum region, makes extended use of nuclear models implemented in the TALYS code to account for experimental data (both differential and integral) by varying the parameters of these models until a satisfactory description of these experimental data is reached. For the evaluation of the covariance data associated with this evaluated data, the Backward-forward Monte Carlo (BFMC) method was devised in such a way that it mirrors the process of the “Full model” evaluation method. When coupled with the Total Monte Carlo method via the T6 system developed by NRG Petten, the BFMC method allows to make use of integral experiments to constrain the distribution of model parameters, and hence the distribution of derived observables and their covariance matrix. Together, TALYS, TMC, BFMC, and T6, constitute a powerful integrated tool for nuclear data evaluation, that allows for evaluation of nuclear data and the associated covariance matrix, all at once, making good use of all the available experimental information to drive the distribution of the model parameters and the derived observables.

  8. Analysis of a Nuclear Accident: Fission and Activation Product Releases from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Facility as Remote Indicators of Source Identification, Extent of Release, and State of Damaged Spent Nuclear Fuel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schwantes, Jon M.; Orton, Christopher R.; Clark, Richard A.

    2011-12-05

    Evidence of the release Pu from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station to the local environment and surrounding communities and estimates on fraction of total fuel inventory released

  9. Preliminary total-system analysis of a potential high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eslinger, P.W.; Doremus, L.A.; Engel, D.W.; Miley, T.B.; Murphy, M.T.; Nichols, W.E.; White, M.D.; Langford, D.W.; Ouderkirk, S.J.

    1993-01-01

    The placement of high-level radioactive wastes in mined repositories deep underground is considered a disposal method that would effectively isolate these wastes from the environment for long periods of time. This report describes modeling performed at PNL for Yucca Mountain between May and November 1991 addressing the performance of the entire repository system related to regulatory criteria established by the EPA in 40 CFR Part 191. The geologic stratigraphy and material properties used in this study were chosen in cooperation with performance assessment modelers at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). Sandia modeled a similar problem using different computer codes and a different modeling philosophy. Pacific Northwest Laboratory performed a few model runs with very complex models, and SNL performed many runs with much simpler (abstracted) models.

  10. American perspectives on security : energy, environment, nuclear weapons, and terrorism : 2010.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Herron, Kerry Gale; Jenkins-Smith, Hank C.; Silva, Carol L.

    2011-03-01

    We report findings from an Internet survey and a subset of questions administered by telephone among the American public in mid-2010 on US energy and environmental security. Key areas of investigation include public perceptions shaping the context for debate about a comprehensive national energy policy, and what levels of importance are assigned to various prospective energy technologies. Additionally, we investigate how public views on global climate change are evolving, how the public assesses the risks and benefits of nuclear energy, preferences for managing used nuclear fuel, and public trust in sources of scientific and technical information. We also report findings from a national Internet survey and a subset of questions administered by telephone in mid-2010 on public views of the relevance of US nuclear weapons today, support for strategic arms control, and assessments of the potential for nuclear abolition. Additionally, we analyze evolving public views of the threat of terrorism, assessments of progress in the struggle against terrorism, and tolerance for intrusive antiterror policies. Where possible, findings from each survey are compared with previous surveys in this series for analyses of trends.

  11. A Multidisciplinary Paradigm and Approach to Protecting Human Health and the Environment, Society, and Stakeholders at Nuclear Facilities - 12244

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael; Clarke, James; Powers, Charles W.; Kosson, David

    2012-07-01

    As the Department of Energy (DOE) continues to remediate its lands, and to consider moving toward long-term stewardship and the development of energy parks on its industrial, remediated land, it is essential to adequately characterize the environment around such facilities to protect society, human health, and the environment. While DOE sites re considering several different land-use scenarios, all of them require adequate protection of the environment. Even if DOE lands are developed for energy parks that are mainly for industrializes sections of DOE lands that will not be remediated to residential standards, there is still the need to consider the protection of human health and the environment. We present an approach to characterization and establishment of teams that will gather the information, and integrate that information for a full range of stakeholders from technical personnel, to public policy makers, and that public. Such information is needed to establish baselines, site new energy facilities in energy parks, protect existing nuclear facilities and nuclear wastes, improve the basis for emergency planning, devise suitable monitoring schemes to ensure continued protection, provide data to track local and regional response changes, and for mitigation, remediation and decommissioning planning. We suggest that there are five categories of information or data needs, including 1) geophysical, sources, fate and transport, 2) biological systems, 3) human health, 4) stakeholder and environmental justice, and 5) societal, economic, and political. These informational needs are more expansive than the traditional site characterization, but encompass a suite of physical, biological, and societal needs to protect all aspects of human health and the environment, not just physical health. We suggest a Site Committee be established that oversees technical teams for each of the major informational categories, with appropriate representation among teams and with a broad

  12. nuclear

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2%2A en U.S-, Japan Exchange Best Practices on Nuclear Emergency Response http:nnsa.energy.govmediaroompressreleasesu.s-japan-exchange-best-practices-nuclear-emergency-respon...

  13. AN EVALUATION OF HYDROGEN INDUCED CRACKING SUSCEPTIBILITY OF TITANIUM ALLOYS IN US HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY ENVIRONMENTS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    G. De; K. Mon; G. Gordon; D. Shoesmith; F. Hua

    2006-02-21

    This paper evaluates hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC) susceptibility of titanium alloys in environments anticipated in the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository with particular emphasis on the. effect of the oxide passive film on the hydrogen absorption process of titanium alloys being evaluated. The titanium alloys considered in this review include Ti 2, 5 , 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 24 and 29. In general, the concentration of hydrogen in a titanium alloy can increase due to absorption of atomic hydrogen produced from passive general corrosion of that alloy or galvanic coupling of it to a less noble metal. It is concluded that under the exposure conditions anticipated in the Yucca Mountain repository, the HIC of titanium drip shield will not occur because there will not be sufficient hydrogen in the metal even after 10,000 years of emplacement. Due to the conservatisms adopted in the current evaluation, this assessment is considered very conservative.

  14. Decline of radionuclides in the nearshore environment following nuclear reactor closure: A U.K. case study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cundy, A.B.; Croudace, I.W.; Warwick, P.E.; Bains, M.E.D.

    1999-09-01

    Radioactive discharges from nuclear facilities are frequently made into the marine environment and their fate during and after cessation of discharges is a matter of interest and concern. This study examines the decline of the radionuclides {sup 60} and {sup 65}Zn along the southern UK. coast, over the per 1988--1998, following the closure of the steam-generating heavy water (SGHW) reactor at AEA Winfrith, Dorset, UK. {sup 60}Co and {sup 65}Zn (and other activation products such as {sup 63}Ni and {sup 55}Fe) were widely dispersed in the marine environment off the central south coast of England, due to authorized releases from AEA Winfrith. Significant interaction occurred with clay-rich sediments and biota. A general exponential decline in {sup 60}Co activities (and in {sup 65}Zn activity) is found in intertidal mudflat sediments, seaweed and marine fauna in different areas along the south coast following closure of the reactor in 1990. Effective half-lives are determined which vary from 1 to 4 years in surface sediments ({sup 60}Co only), 1--4 years in seaweed and 0.5--2.5 years in crustaceans, bivalves and molluscs. Physical mixing and bioturbation largely control the rate at which {sup 60}Co declines in surface sediments. Both {sup 60}Co and {sup 65}Zn show a relatively slow rate of decline in seaweed and in marine fauna, showing that even after the virtual cessation of discharge from nuclear facilities, contamination of these organisms may persist for a number of years, albeit at reduced activities. Reasons for this persistence are likely to include absorption of radionuclides from sediment, and release and recycling of radionuclides via breakdown of contaminated organic material.

  15. A Review Corrosion of TI Grade 7 and Other TI Alloys in Nuclear Waste Repository Environments

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    F. Hua; K. Mon; P. Pasupathi; G. Gordon

    2004-05-11

    Titanium alloy degradation modes are reviewed in relation to their performance in repository environments. General corrosion, localized corrosion, stress corrosion cracking, hydrogen induced cracking, microbially influenced corrosion, and radiation-assisted corrosion of Ti alloys are considered. With respect to the Ti Grade 7 drip shields selected for emplacement in the repository at Yucca Mountain, general corrosion, hydrogen induced cracking, and radiation-assisted corrosion will not lead to failure within the 10,000 year regulatory period; stress corrosion cracking (in the absence of disruptive events) is of no consequence to barrier performance; and localized corrosion and microbially influenced corrosion are not expected to occur. To facilitate the discussion, Ti Grades 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 24 are included in this review.

  16. Environment Videos

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

    Environment Videos Environment

  17. Total Imports

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

    Data Series: Imports - Total Imports - Crude Oil Imports - Crude Oil, Commercial Imports - by SPR Imports - into SPR by Others Imports - Total Products Imports - Total Motor Gasoline Imports - Finished Motor Gasoline Imports - Reformulated Gasoline Imports - Reformulated Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol Imports - Other Reformulated Gasoline Imports - Conventional Gasoline Imports - Conv. Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol Imports - Conv. Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol, Ed55 & < Imports -

  18. Country Total

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

    Country Total Percent of U.S. total Canada 61,078 1% China 3,323,297 57% Germany 154,800 3% Japan 12,593 0% India 47,192 1% South Korea 251,105 4% All Others 2,008,612 34% Total 5,858,677 100% Table 7 . Photovoltaic module import shipments by country, 2014 (peak kilowatts) Note: All Others includes Cambodia, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Turkey Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, 'Annual Photovoltaic

  19. State Total

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

    State Total Percent of U.S. total Alabama 482 0.0% Alaska 81 0.0% Arizona 194,476 3.3% Arkansas 336 0.0% California 3,163,120 53.0% Colorado 47,240 0.8% Connecticut 50,745 0.9% Delaware 6,600 0.1% District of Columbia 751 0.0% Florida 18,593 0.3% Georgia 47,660 0.8% Hawaii 78,329 1.3% Illinois 5,795 0.1% Indiana 37,016 0.6% Iowa 14,281 0.2% Kansas 1,809 0.0% Kentucky 520 0.0% Louisiana 12,147 0.2% Maine 1,296 0.0% Maryland 63,077 1.1% Massachusetts 157,415 2.6% Michigan 4,210 0.1% Minnesota

  20. Hadronic nuclear energy: An approach towards green energy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Das Sarma, Indrani B.

    2015-03-10

    Nuclear energy is undoubtedly the largest energy source capable of meeting the total energy requirements to a large extent in long terms. However the conventional nuclear energy involves production of high level of radioactive wastes which possesses threat, both to the environment and mankind. The modern day demand of clean, cheap and abundant energy gets fulfilled by the novel fuels that have been developed through hadronic mechanics/chemistry. In the present paper, a short review of Hadronic nuclear energy by intermediate controlled nuclear synthesis and particle type like stimulated neutron decay and double beta decay has been presented.

  1. hrp | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    hrp Personnel Security Program NNSA is responsible for managing national nuclear security and supports several key program areas including Defense, Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors, Emergency Operations, Infrastructure and Environment, Nuclear Security, Management and Administration and the Office of the Administrator.

  2. Barge Truck Total

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

    Barge Truck Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over total shipments Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over...

  3. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

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

    net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 11,441 25.9 96,190 47.8 Coal 15,551 35.2 ... Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Illinois nuclear power ...

  4. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

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

    net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 5,271 13.4 41,870 30.6 Coal 2,781 7.1 ... Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) New York nuclear power ...

  5. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

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

    net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,705 13.6 13,994 32.1 Coal 4,886 39.0 ... Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Maryland nuclear power ...

  6. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

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

    net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 3,947 13.2 29,625 26.6 Coal 11,531 38.7 ... Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Michigan nuclear power ...

  7. ,"Total Natural Gas Consumption

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

    Gas Consumption (billion cubic feet)",,,,,"Natural Gas Energy Intensity (cubic feetsquare foot)" ,"Total ","Space Heating","Water Heating","Cook- ing","Other","Total ","Space...

  8. Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Construction Cost Reductions through the Use of Virtual Environments - Task 4 Report: Virtual Mockup Maintenance Task Evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Timothy Shaw; Anthony Baratta; Vaughn Whisker

    2005-02-28

    Task 4 report of 3 year DOE NERI-sponsored effort evaluating immersive virtual reality (CAVE) technology for design review, construction planning, and maintenance planning and training for next generation nuclear power plants. Program covers development of full-scale virtual mockups generated from 3D CAD data presented in a CAVE visualization facility. This report focuses on using Full-scale virtual mockups for nuclear power plant training applications.

  9. United States Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity...

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

    Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source, 2006 - 2010" "(Megawatts)" "United ... Gases",2256,2313,1995,1932,2700 "Nuclear",100334,100266,100755,101004,10116...

  10. $787 Million Total in Small Business Contract Funding Awarded...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    787 Million Total in Small Business Contract Funding Awarded in FY2009 by DOE Programs in Oak Ridge | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS...

  11. FY 2009 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, PER Summary |...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    FY 2009 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, PER Summary SUMMARY OF FY 2009 SAVANNAH RIVER NUCLEAR SOLUTIONS, LLC, AWARD FEE DETERMINATION Total Available Fee Total Fee Earned % ...

  12. FY 2011 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, PER Summary |...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    FY 2011 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, PER Summary SUMMARY OF FY 2011 SAVANNAH RIVER NUCLEAR SOLUTIONS, LLC, AWARD FEE DETERMINATION Total Available Fee Total Fee Earned % ...

  13. FY 2010 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, PER Summary |...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    FY 2010 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, PER Summary SUMMARY OF FY 2010 SAVANNAH RIVER NUCLEAR SOLUTIONS, LLC, AWARD FEE DETERMINATION Total Available Fee Total Fee Earned % ...

  14. FY 2012 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, PER Summary |...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    12 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, PER Summary SUMMARY OF FY 2012 SAVANNAH RIVER NUCLEAR SOLUTIONS, LLC, AWARD FEE DETERMINATION Total Available Fee Total Fee Earned % ...

  15. FY 2010 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, PER Summary |...

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

    0 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, PER Summary SUMMARY OF FY 2010 SAVANNAH RIVER NUCLEAR SOLUTIONS, LLC, AWARD FEE DETERMINATION Total Available Fee Total Fee Earned % ...

  16. nr | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    nr On Womens Equality Day, we celebrate NNSA's talented Women in STEM About Naval Reactors What Is the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program? The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program comprises the military and civilian personnel who design, build, operate, maintain, and manage the nuclear-powered ships and the many facilities that support the U.S. nuclear-powered naval fleet. The Program... Powering the Nuclear Navy Concern for the Environment Protection of People Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants Annual

  17. Nuclear pursuits

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-05-01

    This table lists quantities of warheads (in stockpile, peak number per year, total number built, number of known test explosions), weapon development milestones (developers of the atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb, date of first operational ICBM, first nuclear-powered naval SSN in service, first MIRVed missile deployed), and testing milestones (first fission test, type of boosted fission weapon, multistage thermonuclear test, number of months from fission bomb to multistage thermonuclear bomb, etc.), and nuclear infrastructure (assembly plants, plutonium production reactors, uranium enrichment plants, etc.). Countries included in the tally are the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China.

  18. Nuclear Safety Information Agreement Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

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

    Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security | Department of Energy Nuclear Safety Information Agreement Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security Nuclear Safety Information Agreement Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear

  19. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration...

  20. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

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

    A. Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region for All Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per Gallon",,,,"per...

  1. ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption

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

    A. Fuel Oil Consumption (gallons) and Energy Intensities by End Use for All Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption (million gallons)",,,,,"Fuel Oil Energy Intensity...

  2. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Revised: December, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings...

  3. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings*...

  4. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

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

    . Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per...

  5. ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption

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

    0. Fuel Oil Consumption (gallons) and Energy Intensities by End Use for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption (million gallons)",,,,,"Fuel Oil Energy Intensity...

  6. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

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

    4. Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region, 1999" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per Gallon",,,,"per Square Foot"...

  7. Nuclear Safety Information Agreement Between the U.S. Nuclear...

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

    Environment, Health, Safety and Security (EHSS DOE), Cathy Haney (Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NRC)), Marissa Bailey (Director, Division of Fuel...

  8. Anthropogenic radionuclides in the environment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hu, Q; Weng, J; Wang, J

    2007-11-15

    Studies of radionuclides in the environment have entered a new era with the renaissance of nuclear energy and associated fuel reprocessing, geological disposal of high-level nuclear wastes, and concerns about national security with respect to nuclear non-proliferation. This work presents an overview of anthropogenic radionuclide contamination in the environment, as well as the salient geochemical behavior of important radionuclides. We first discuss the following major anthropogenic sources and current development that contribute to the radionuclide contamination of the environment: (1) nuclear weapons program; (2) nuclear weapons testing; (3) nuclear power plants; (4) commercial fuel reprocessing; (5) geological repository of high-level nuclear wastes, and (6) nuclear accidents. Then, we summarize the geochemical behavior for radionuclides {sup 99}Tc, {sup 129}I, and {sup 237}Np, because of their complex geochemical behavior, long half-lives, and presumably high mobility in the environment. Biogeochemical cycling and environment risk assessment must take into account speciation of these redox-sensitive radionuclides.

  9. Parallel Total Energy

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-10-21

    This is a total energy electronic structure code using Local Density Approximation (LDA) of the density funtional theory. It uses the plane wave as the wave function basis set. It can sue both the norm conserving pseudopotentials and the ultra soft pseudopotentials. It can relax the atomic positions according to the total energy. It is a parallel code using MP1.

  10. U.S. Total Exports

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Total to Chile Sabine Pass, LA Total to China Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Egypt ... Sabine Pass, LA Total to Russia Total to South Korea Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total ...

  11. German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Jump to: navigation, search Logo: German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and...

  12. Louisiana Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

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

    Louisiana nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant NameTotal Reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear ...

  13. Summary Max Total Units

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

    Summary Max Total Units *If All Splits, No Rack Units **If Only FW, AC Splits 1000 52 28 28 2000 87 59 35 3000 61 33 15 4000 61 33 15 Totals 261 153 93 ***Costs $1,957,500.00 $1,147,500.00 $697,500.00 Notes: added several refrigerants removed bins from analysis removed R-22 from list 1000lb, no Glycol, CO2 or ammonia Seawater R-404A only * includes seawater units ** no seawater units included *** Costs = (total units) X (estimate of $7500 per unit) 1000lb, air cooled split systems, fresh water

  14. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other...

  15. ARM - Measurement - Total carbon

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

    carbon ARM Data Discovery Browse Data Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Measurement : Total carbon The total concentration of carbon in all its organic and non-organic forms. Categories Atmospheric Carbon, Aerosols Instruments The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers of each instrument for a list of all available measurements, including

  16. Probing the Oxygen Environment in UO22+ by Solid-State O-17 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and Relativistic Density Functional Calculations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cho, Herman M.; De Jong, Wibe A.; Soderquist, Chuck Z.

    2010-02-28

    A combined theoretical and solid-state O-17 NMR study of the electronic structure of the uranyl ion UO22+ in (NH4)4UO2(CO3)3 and rutherfordine UO2CO3 is presented, the former representing a system with a hydrogen-bonding environment around the uranyl oxygens, and the latter exemplifying a uranyl environment without hydrogens. A fully relativistic ab initio treatment reveals unique features of the U-O covalent bond, including the finding of O-17 chemical shift anisotropies that are among the largest ever reported (>1200 ppm). Computational results for the oxygen electric field gradient tensor are found to be consistently larger in magnitude than experimental solid-state O-17 NMR measurements in a 7.05 T magnetic field indicate. A modified version of the Solomon theory of the two-spin echo amplitude for a spin-5/2 nucleus is developed and applied to the analysis of the O-17 echo signal of UO22+. The William R. Wiley environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory is a US Department of Energy national scientific user facility located at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in Richland, Washington. PNNL is operated by Battelle for the US Department of Energy.

  17. Nuclear economics 2000: Deterministic and probabilistic projections of nuclear and coal electric power generation costs for the year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Williams, K.A.; Delene, J.G.; Fuller, L.C.; Bowers, H.I.

    1987-06-01

    The total busbar electric generating costs were estimated for locations in ten regions of the United States for base-load nuclear and coal-fired power plants with a startup date of January 2000. For the Midwest region a complete data set that specifies each parameter used to obtain the comparative results is supplied. When based on the reference set of input variables, the comparison of power generation costs is found to favor nuclear in most regions of the country. Nuclear power is most favored in the northeast and western regions where coal must be transported over long distances; however, coal-fired generation is most competitive in the north central region where large reserves of cheaply mineable coal exist. In several regions small changes in the reference variables could cause either option to be preferred. The reference data set reflects the better of recent electric utility construction cost experience (BE) for nuclear plants. This study assumes as its reference case a stable regulatory environment and improved planning and construction practices, resulting in nuclear plants typically built at the present BE costs. Today's BE nuclear-plant capital investment cost model is then being used as a surrogate for projected costs for the next generation of light-water reactor plants. An alternative analysis based on today's median experience (ME) nuclear-plant construction cost experience is also included. In this case, coal is favored in all ten regions, implying that typical nuclear capital investment costs must improve for nuclear to be competitive.

  18. Total DOE/NNSA

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 Actuals 2009 Actuals 2010 Actuals 2011 Actuals 2012 Actuals 2013 Actuals 2014 Actuals 2015 Actuals Total DOE/NNSA 4,385 4,151 4,240 4,862 5,154 5,476 7,170 7,593 Total non-NNSA 3,925 4,017 4,005 3,821 3,875 3,974 3,826 3765 Total Facility 8,310 8,168 8,245 8,683 9,029 9,450 10,996 11,358 non-NNSA includes DOE offices and Strategic Parternship Projects (SPP) employees NNSA M&O Employee Reporting

  19. Nuclear methods in environmental and energy research

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vogt, J R

    1980-01-01

    A total of 75 papers were presented on nuclear methods for analysis of environmental and biological samples. Sessions were devoted to software and mathematical methods; nuclear methods in atmospheric and water research; nuclear and atomic methodology; nuclear methods in biology and medicine; and nuclear methods in energy research.

  20. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

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

    Entergy Nuclear Generation Co 1 Plant 1 Reactor 685 5,918 100.0 Note: Totals may not ... 98.7 BWR 1211972 682012 685 5,918 98.7 Data for 2010 BWR Boiling Water Reactor. ...

  1. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

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

    Entergy Nuclear Generation Co 1 Plant 1 Reactor 685 5,918 100.0 Owner Note: Totals may ... Data for 2010 BWR Boiling Water Reactor. Source: Form EIA-860, "Annual Electric ...

  2. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

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

    Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee 1 Plant 1 Reactor 620 4,782 100.0 Note: Totals may not ... 88.0 BWR 11301972 3212012 620 4,782 88.0 Data for 2010 BWR Boiling Water Reactor. ...

  3. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

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

    Yankee Unit 1 620 4,782 100.0 Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee 1 Plant 1 Reactor 620 4,782 100.0 Owner Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. ...

  4. Arizona Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",3937,14.9,"31,200",27.9 "Coal","6,233",23.6,"43,644",39.1 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  5. Maryland Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,705",13.6,"13,994",32.1 "Coal","4,886",39.0,"23,668",54.3 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  6. Mississippi Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,251",8.0,"9,643",17.7 "Coal","2,526",16.1,"13,629",25.0 "Natural ...

  7. Pennsylvania Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","9,540",20.9,"77,828",33.9 "Coal","18,481",40.6,"110,369",48.0 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  8. Connecticut Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","2,103",25.4,"16,750",50.2 "Coal",564,6.8,"2,604",7.8 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  9. Illinois Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","11,441",25.9,"96,190",47.8 "Coal","15,551",35.2,"93,611",46.5 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  10. Iowa Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",601,4.1,"4,451",7.7 "Coal","6,956",47.7,"41,283",71.8 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  11. Louisiana Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","2,142",8.0,"18,639",18.1 "Coal","3,417",12.8,"23,924",23.3 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  12. Michigan Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,947",13.2,"29,625",26.6 "Coal","11,531",38.7,"65,604",58.8 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  13. Missouri Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,190",5.5,"8,996",9.7 "Coal","12,070",55.5,"75,047",81.3 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  14. Ohio Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","2,134",6.5,"15,805",11.0 "Coal","21,360",64.6,"117,828",82.1 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  15. Vermont Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",620,55.0,"4,782",72.2 "Hydro and Pumped Storage",324,28.7,"1,347",20.3 "Natural ...

  16. Wisconsin Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,584",8.9,"13,281",20.7 "Coal","8,063",45.2,"40,169",62.5 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  17. Arkansas Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,835",11.5,"15,023",24.6 "Coal","4,535",28.4,"28,152",46.2 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  18. Minnesota Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,594",10.8,"13,478",25.1 "Coal","4,789",32.5,"28,083",52.3 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  19. Florida Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,924",6.6,"23,936",10.4 "Coal","9,975",16.9,"59,897",26.1 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  20. Texas Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,966",4.6,"41,335",10.0 "Coal","22,335",20.6,"150,173",36.5 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  1. Virginia Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,501",14.5,"26,572",36.4 "Coal","5,868",24.3,"25,459",34.9 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  2. Massachusetts Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear",685,5.0,"5,918",13.8 "Coal","1,669",12.2,"8,306",19.4 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  3. Tennessee Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","3,401",15.9,"27,739",33.7 "Coal","8,805",41.1,"43,670",53.0 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  4. Washington Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,097",3.6,"9,241",8.9 "Coal","1,340",4.4,"8,527",8.2 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  5. Nebraska Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,245",15.8,"11,054",30.2 "Coal","3,932",50.0,"23,363",63.8 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  6. Georgia Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,061",11.1,"33,512",24.4 "Coal","13,230",36.1,"73,298",53.3 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  7. California Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","4,390",6.5,"32,201",15.8 "Coal",374,0.6,"2,100",1.0 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  8. Kansas Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","1,160",9.2,"9,556",19.9 "Coal","5,179",41.3,"32,505",67.8 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  9. Alabama Nuclear Profile - All Fuels

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

    total (percent)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State total (percent)" "Nuclear","5,043",15.6,"37,941",24.9 "Coal","11,441",35.3,"63,050",41.4 "Hydro and Pumped ...

  10. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    83 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 25 25 89 134 67 27 202 171 1198 426 PAY PLAN SES 94 EX 3 EJ/EK 52 EN 05 42 EN 04 173 EN 03 42 EN 00 23 NN (Engineering) 395 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 1157 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 51 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 327 GS 15 2 GS 14 1 ED 00 2 White 33.1% National Nuclear Security Administration As of September 5, 2015 DIVERSITY 2364 1581 66.9% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic SES EX EJ/EK

  11. Contribution of atom-probe tomography to a better understanding of glass alteration mechanisms: application to a nuclear glass specimen altered 25 years in a granitic environment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gin, Stephane; Ryan, Joseph V.; Schreiber, Daniel K.; Neeway, James J.; Cabie, M.

    2013-06-26

    We report and discuss results of atom probe tomography (APT) and energy-filtered transmission electron microscopy (EFTEM) applied to a borosilicate glass sample of nuclear interest altered for nearly 26 years at 90°C in a confined granitic medium in order to better understand the rate-limiting mechanisms under conditions representative of a deep geological repository for vitrified radioactive waste. The APT technique allows the 3D reconstruction of the elemental distribution at the reactive interphase with sub-nanometer precision. Profiles of the B distribution at pristine glass/hydrated glass interface obtained by different techniques are compared to show the challenge of accurate measurements of diffusion profiles at this buried interface on the nanometer length scale. Our results show that 1) Alkali from the glass and hydrogen from the solution exhibit anti-correlated 15 ± 3 nm wide gradients located between the pristine glass and the hydrated glass layer, 2) boron exhibits an unexpectedly sharp profile located just at the outside of the alkali/H interdiffusion layer; this sharp profile is more consistent with a dissolution front than a diffusion-controlled release of boron. The resulting apparent diffusion coefficients derived from the Li and H profiles are DLi = 1.5 × 10-22 m2.s-1 and DH = 6.8 × 10-23 m2.s-1. These values are around two orders of magnitude lower than those observed at the very beginning of the alteration process, which suggests that interdiffusion is slowed at high reaction progress by local conditions that could be related to the porous structure of the interphase. As a result, the accessibility of water to the pristine glass could be the rate-limiting step in these conditions. More generally, these findings strongly support the importance of interdiffusion coupled with hydrolysis reactions of the silicate network on the long-term dissolution rate, contrary to what has been suggested by recent interfacial dissolution-precipitation models

  12. Contribution of atom-probe tomography to a better understanding of glass alteration mechanisms: Application to a nuclear glass specimen altered 25 years in a granitic environment

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

    Gin, Stephane; Ryan, Joseph V.; Schreiber, Daniel K.; Neeway, James J.; Cabie, M.

    2013-04-08

    Here, we report and discuss results of atom probe tomography (APT) and energy-filtered transmission electron microscopy (EFTEM) applied to a borosilicate glass sample of nuclear interest altered for nearly 26 years at 90°C in a confined granitic medium in order to better understand the rate-limiting mechanisms under conditions representative of a deep geological repository for vitrified radioactive waste. The APT technique allows the 3D reconstruction of the elemental distribution at the reactive interphase with sub-nanometer precision. Profiles of the B distribution at pristine glass/hydrated glass interface obtained by different techniques are compared to show the challenge of accurate measurements ofmore » diffusion profiles at this buried interface on the nanometer length scale. Our results show that 1) Alkali from the glass and hydrogen from the solution exhibit anti-correlated 15 ± 3 nm wide gradients located between the pristine glass and the hydrated glass layer, 2) boron exhibits an unexpectedly sharp profile located just at the outside of the alkali/H interdiffusion layer; this sharp profile is more consistent with a dissolution front than a diffusion-controlled release of boron. The resulting apparent diffusion coefficients derived from the Li and H profiles are DLi = 1.5 × 10-22 m2.s-1 and DH = 6.8 × 10-23 m2.s-1. These values are around two orders of magnitude lower than those observed at the very beginning of the alteration process, which suggests that interdiffusion is slowed at high reaction progress by local conditions that could be related to the porous structure of the interphase. As a result, the accessibility of water to the pristine glass could be the rate-limiting step in these conditions. More generally, these findings strongly support the importance of interdiffusion coupled with hydrolysis reactions of the silicate network on the long-term dissolution rate, contrary to what has been suggested by recent interfacial dissolution

  13. NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Carter, J.C.; Armstrong, R.H.; Janicke, M.J.

    1963-05-14

    A nuclear power plant for use in an airless environment or other environment in which cooling is difficult is described. The power plant includes a boiling mercury reactor, a mercury--vapor turbine in direct cycle therewith, and a radiator for condensing mercury vapor. (AEC)

  14. United States -Japan Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan

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

    -Japan Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan 1. Introduction 1.1 Background and Objective ... for the contribution of nuclear power to energy security and the global environment. ...

  15. Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and DOE's Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security Nuclear safety information sharing agreement between NRC and ...

  16. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    3 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0 1 1 4 1 0 0 4 10 4 PAY PLAN SES 7 EX 2 EJ/EK 1 EN 05 1 EN 04 2 EN 00 1 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 10 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-1) As of March 21, 2015 DIVERSITY 25 12 48.0% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 52.0% SES EX EJ/EK EN 05 EN 04 EN 00 NQ NU 28.0% 8.0% 4.0% 4.0% 8.0% 4.0% 40.0% 4.0% 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 16.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%

  17. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    91 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 1 0 3 17 3 6 8 10 70 58 PAY PLAN SES 12 EX 1 EJ/EK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 2 EN 03 1 EN 00 3 NN (Engineering) 27 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 123 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 GS 15 1 Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear NonProliferation (NA-20) As of March 21, 2015 DIVERSITY 176 85 48.3% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 51.7% SES EX EJ/EK EN 05 EN 04 EN 03 EN 00 NN NQ NU GS 15

  18. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2 4 6 0 0 6 15 29 18 PAY PLAN SES 2 EJ/EK 1 NN (Engineering) 7 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 67 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 DIVERSITY 80 39 48.8% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 51.3% Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security (NA-70) As of March 21, 2015 SES EJ/EK NN NQ NU 2.5% 1.3% 8.8% 83.8% 3.8% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 18.8% 36.3% 22.5% SUPERVISORS DISABILITY 7 SUPERVISORS RATIO VETERANS 29 RETIREMENT AGE 51.7 2 14 12 35

  19. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    92 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 1 0 3 16 4 7 9 10 72 59 PAY PLAN SES 12 EX 1 EJ/EK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 4 EN 03 7 EN 00 4 NN (Engineering) 28 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 118 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 GS 15 1 ED 00 1 DIVERSITY 181 89 49.2% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 50.8% Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear NonProliferation (NA-20) As of September 5, 2015 SES EX EJ/EK EN 05 EN 04 EN 03 EN 00 NN NQ

  20. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    0 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0 2 4 6 0 0 7 14 27 18 PAY PLAN SES 3 NN (Engineering) 6 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 66 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 DIVERSITY 78 38 48.7% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 51.3% Associate Administrator for Defense Nuclear Security (NA-70) As of September 5, 2015 SES NN NQ NU 3.8% 7.7% 84.6% 3.8% 0.0% 2.6% 5.1% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.0% 17.9% 34.6% 23.1% Prepared by NNSA Office of

  1. Nuclear Science

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

    Nuclear Science Nuclear Science Experimental and theoretical nuclear research carried out at NERSC is driven by the quest for improving our understanding of the building blocks of...

  2. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    3 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 1 1 1 7 3 2 7 5 55 18 PAY PLAN SES 3 EJ/EK 5 EN 05 13 EN 04 11 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 43 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 23 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 * Reorganization, includes NA-SH and NA-00 employees. White 33.0% Associate Administrator for Infrastructure & Environment (NA-50) As of March 21, 2015 DIVERSITY 100 67 67.0% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic SES EJ/EK EN 05 EN 04

  3. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    76 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 27 24 86 134 65 24 192 171 1189 423 PAY PLAN SES 96 EX 4 EJ/EK 60 EN 05 39 EN 04 159 EN 03 21 EN 00 8 NN (Engineering) 398 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 1165 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 54 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 325 GS 15 3 GS 14 1 GS 13 1 GS 10 1 Total includes 2318 permanent and 17 temporary employees. DIVERSITY 2335 1559 66.8% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 33.2% National

  4. Nuclear Astrophysics

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

    Nuclear & Uranium Glossary › FAQS › Overview Data Status of U.S. nuclear outages (interactive) Nuclear power plants Uranium & nuclear fuel Spent nuclear fuel All nuclear data reports Analysis & Projections Major Topics Most popular Nuclear plants and reactors Projections Recurring Uranium All reports Browse by Tag Alphabetical Frequency Tag Cloud Current Issues & Trends See more › U.S. nuclear outages this summer were higher than in summer 2015

  5. Nuclear Forensics

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

    nuclear forensics Nuclear Forensics AMS is a Powerful Tool for Nuclear Forensics Nuclear forensics, which can be applied to both interdicted materials and debris from a nuclear explosion, is the application of laboratory analysis and interpretation to provide technical conclusions (provenance, design, etc.) about a nuclear device or interdicted nuclear material. Nuclear forensic analysts can build confidence in their conclusions by employing multiple signatures that collectively minimize the

  6. Nuclear Facilities

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The nuclear sites list and map shows how DOE nuclear operations are mostly divided between nuclear weapons stockpile maintenance, research and environmental cleanup. The operations are performed within several different facilities supporting nuclear reactor operations, nuclear research, weapons disassembly, maintenance and testing, hot cell operations, nuclear material storage and processing and waste disposal.

  7. User Environment

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

    User Environment Environment on Genepool When you log into the Genepool system you will land in your $HOME directory on NERSC's "global homes" file system. The global homes file system is mounted across all NERSC computation systems with the exception of PDSF. The $HOME directory has quota of 40GB and 1,000,000 inodes. To customize your environment, by setting environment variables or aliases, you will need to modify one of the "dot" files that NERSC has created for you. You

  8. Computational Systems & Software Environment | National Nuclear...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    (IO), storage and networking, to post-processing visualization and data analysis tools. ... The IO, Storage Systems, and Networking product provides IO (inputoutput, or data ...

  9. International Standards & Policy Development | National Nuclear...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    and Nuclear Facilities off site link to better reflect the threat environment. NNSA also led the international effort to revise the International Atomic Energy Agency's off site...

  10. Site Information | National Nuclear Security Administration | (NNSA)

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Site Information Facilities & Projects Nuclear Operations Environment, Safety & Health Safeguards & Security Performance & Quality Assurance Programs NEPA Reading Room

  11. Determination of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Using Total Carbon Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ekechukwu, A.A.

    2002-05-10

    Several methods have been proposed to replace the Freon(TM)-extraction method to determine total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content. For reasons of cost, sensitivity, precision, or simplicity, none of the replacement methods are feasible for analysis of radioactive samples at our facility. We have developed a method to measure total petroleum hydrocarbon content in aqueous sample matrixes using total organic carbon (total carbon) determination. The total carbon content (TC1) of the sample is measured using a total organic carbon analyzer. The sample is then contacted with a small volume of non-pokar solvent to extract the total petroleum hydrocarbons. The total carbon content of the resultant aqueous phase of the extracted sample (TC2) is measured. Total petroleum hydrocarbon content is calculated (TPH = TC1-TC2). The resultant data are consistent with results obtained using Freon(TM) extraction followed by infrared absorbance.

  12. Maryland Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

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

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, Unit 2","1,705","13,994",100.0,"Calvert Cliffs Nuclear PP Inc" "1 Plant 2 Reactors","1,705","13,994",100.0 "Note: Totals

  13. Massachusetts Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

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

    nuclear power plants, summer capacity and net generation, 2010" "Plant name/total reactors","Summer capacity (mw)","Net generation (thousand mwh)","Share of State nuclear net generation (percent)","Owner" "Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit 1",685,"5,918",100.0,"Entergy Nuclear Generation Co" "1 Plant 1 Reactor",685,"5,918",100.0 "Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to

  14. nuclear security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    3%2A en Shaping the future of nuclear detection http:nnsa.energy.govblogshaping-future-nuclear-detection

    Learning techniques to combat nuclear trafficking, touring the...

  15. Nuclear Science

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

    and Engineering Education Sourcebook 2013 American Nuclear Society US Department of Energy Nuclear Science & Engineering Education Sourcebook 2013 North American Edition American Nuclear Society Education, Training, and Workforce Division US Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Editor and Founder John Gilligan Professor of Nuclear Engineering North Carolina State University Version 5.13 Welcome to the 2013 Edition of the Nuclear Science and Engineering Education (NS&EE)

  16. WIPP Documents - Nuclear Safety

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

    Nuclear Safety DOE/WIPP-07-3372, Revision 5b, WIPP Documented Safety Analysis Approved April 2016 The Documented Safety Analysis addresses all hazards (both radiological and nonradiological) and the controls necessary to provide adequate protection to the public, workers, and the environment. The WIPP DSA demonstrates the extent to which the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant can be operated safely with respect to workers, the public, and the environment. DOE/WIPP-07-3373, Revision 5b, WIPP Technical

  17. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

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

    Vermont profile Vermont total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 620 55.0 4,782 72.2 Hydro and Pumped Storage 324 28.7 1,347 20.3 Natural Gas - - 4 0.1 Other Renewable1 84 7.5 482 7.3 Petroleum 100 8.9 5 0.1 Total 1,128 100.0 6,620 100.0 1Municipal Solid Waste net generation is allocated according to the

  18. Office of Nuclear Safety | Department of Energy

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

    Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Safety Mission The Office of Nuclear Safety establishes nuclear safety requirements and expectations for the Department to ensure protection of workers, the public, and the environment from the hazards associated with nuclear operations. It also establishes general facility safety requirements in the areas of fire protection, natural phenomena hazards, and quality assurance (QA) to ensure that products and services meet or exceed the Department's objectives in

  19. nuclear enterprise

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Outlines Accomplishments in Stockpile Stewardship, Nuclear Nonproliferation, Naval Reactors and Managing the Nuclear Enterprise

    The...

  20. Nuclear Physics

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

    Nuclear Physics Nuclear Physics Enabling remarkable discoveries and tools that transform our understanding of energy and matter and advance national, economic, and energy security. ...

  1. U.S. Total Exports

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

    Barbados Total To Brazil Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total to Canada Eastport, ID Calais, ME Detroit, MI Marysville, MI Port Huron, MI Crosby, ND Portal, ND Sault St. Marie, MI St. Clair, MI Noyes, MN Warroad, MN Babb, MT Havre, MT Port of Morgan, MT Sherwood, ND Pittsburg, NH Buffalo, NY Grand Island, NY Massena, NY Niagara Falls, NY Waddington, NY Sumas, WA Sweetgrass, MT Total to Chile Sabine Pass, LA Total to China Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Egypt Freeport, TX Total to India

  2. Spent Nuclear Fuel

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

    Nuclear & Uranium Glossary FAQS Overview Data Status of U.S. nuclear outages (interactive) Nuclear power plants Uranium & nuclear fuel Spent nuclear fuel All nuclear data ...

  3. FY 2007 Total System Life Cycle Cost, Pub 2008 | Department of Energy

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

    FY 2007 Total System Life Cycle Cost, Pub 2008 FY 2007 Total System Life Cycle Cost, Pub 2008 The Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost (TSLCC) of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program presents the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management's (OCRWM) May 2007 total system cost estimate for the disposal of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW). The TSLCC analysis provides a basis for assessing the adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund

  4. Nuclear Science/Nuclear Chemistry

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

    nuclear science nuclear chemistry Nuclear Science/Nuclear Chemistry Nuclear Physics The 10-MV tandem accelerator at CAMS provides a platform for conducting nuclear physics experiment both for basic science and lab mission-related programs. For example, we performed a new cross section measurement of the astrophysically important reaction 40Ca(a,g)44Ti in which high purity CaO targets were irradiated with helium ions at several different discrete energies. The reaction rate was measured on-line

  5. Total Eolica | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Eolica Jump to: navigation, search Name: Total Eolica Place: Spain Product: Project developer References: Total Eolica1 This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding...

  6. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

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

    Iowa Nuclear Profile 2010 Iowa profile Iowa total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 601 4.1 4,451 7.7 Coal 6,956 47.7 41,283 71.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 144 1.0 948 1.6 Natural Gas 2,299 15.8 1,312 2.3 Other Renewable1 3,584 24.6 9,360 16.3 Petroleum 1,007 6.9 154 .0.3 Total 14,592 100.0 57,509 100

  7. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

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

    Nebraska Nuclear Profile 2010 Nebraska profile Nebraska total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 1,245 15.8 11,054 30.2 Coal 3,932 50.0 23,368 63.8 Hydro and Pumped Storage 278 3.5 1,314 3.6 Natural Gas 1,864 23.5 375 1.0 Other Renewable1 165 2.1 493 1.3 Petroleum 387 4.9 31 0.1 Total 7,857 100.0 36,630

  8. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

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

    Ohio Nuclear Profile 2010 Ohio profile Ohio total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Primary energy source Summer capacity (mw) Share of State total (percent) Net generation (thousand mwh) Share of State total (percent) Nuclear 2,134 6.5 15,805 11.0 Coal 21,360 64.6 117,828 82.1 Hydro and Pumped Storage 101 0.3 429 0.3 Natural Gas 8,203 24.8 7,128 5.0 Other 1 123 0.4 266 0.2 Other Renewable1 130 0.4 700 0.5 Petroleum 1,019 3.1 1,442 1.0 Total

  9. Total..............................................

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

    111.1 86.6 2,720 1,970 1,310 1,941 1,475 821 1,059 944 554 Census Region and Division Northeast.................................... 20.6 13.9 3,224 2,173 836 2,219 1,619 583 903 830 Q New England.......................... 5.5 3.6 3,365 2,154 313 2,634 1,826 Q 951 940 Q Middle Atlantic........................ 15.1 10.3 3,167 2,181 1,049 2,188 1,603 582 Q Q Q Midwest...................................... 25.6 21.0 2,823 2,239 1,624 2,356 1,669 1,336 1,081 961 778 East North

  10. Total............................................................

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

  11. Total..............................................................

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

    ,171 1,618 1,031 845 630 401 Census Region and Division Northeast................................................... 20.6 2,334 1,664 562 911 649 220 New England.......................................... 5.5 2,472 1,680 265 1,057 719 113 Middle Atlantic........................................ 15.1 2,284 1,658 670 864 627 254 Midwest...................................................... 25.6 2,421 1,927 1,360 981 781 551 East North Central.................................. 17.7 2,483 1,926 1,269

  12. Total...............................................................

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

    20.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 6.9 8.1 14.2 6.4 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 13.7 17.5 26.6 17.8 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 9.3 11.9 18.2 11.0 2.......................................................... 16.2 2.9 3.5 5.5 4.4 3 or More............................................. 9.0 1.5 2.1 2.9 2.5 Number of Laptop PCs

  13. Total...............................................................

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

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 14.2 7.2 2.8 4.2 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 26.6 14.5 4.1 7.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 18.2 10.0 2.9 5.3 2.......................................................... 16.2 5.5 3.0 0.7 1.8 3 or More............................................. 9.0 2.9 1.5 0.5 0.8 Number of Laptop PCs

  14. Total...............................................................

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

    26.7 28.8 20.6 13.1 22.0 16.6 38.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 17.1 10.8 4.2 1.8 1.6 10.3 20.6 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 9.6 18.0 16.4 11.3 20.3 6.4 17.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 8.3 14.2 11.4 7.2 9.2 5.3 14.2 2.......................................................... 16.2 0.9 2.6 3.7 2.9 6.2 0.8 2.6 3 or More............................................. 9.0 0.4 1.2

  15. Total...............................................................

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

    47.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 16.9 6.5 4.6 7.6 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 30.3 12.5 18.1 14.7 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 21.1 8.3 10.7 10.1 2.......................................................... 16.2 6.2 2.8 4.1 3.0 3 or More............................................. 9.0 2.9 1.4 3.2 1.6 Number of Laptop PCs

  16. Total.................................................................

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

    49.2 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................... 93.3 31.3 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Use Cooling Equipment................................ 91.4 30.4 14.6 15.4 11.1 6.9 5.2 7.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............... 1.9 1.0 0.5 Q Q Q Q Q Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................... 17.8 17.8 N N N N N N Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................. 65.9 3.9 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Without a Heat

  17. Total.................................................................

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

    14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment........ 1.2 N Q Q 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment........... 109.8 14.7 7.4 12.4 12.2 18.5 18.3 17.1 9.2 Use Main Space Heating Equipment............. 109.1 14.6 7.3 12.4 12.2 18.2 18.2 17.1 9.1 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It............... 0.8 Q Q Q Q 0.3 Q N Q Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas................................................... 58.2 9.2 4.9 7.8 7.1 8.8 8.4 7.8 4.2 Central

  18. Total..................................................................

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

    . 111.1 14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment..................... 17.8 3.9 1.8 2.2 2.1 3.1 2.6 1.7 0.4 Have Cooling Equipment................................. 93.3 10.8 5.6 10.3 10.4 15.8 16.0 15.6 8.8 Use Cooling Equipment.................................. 91.4 10.6 5.5 10.3 10.3 15.3 15.7 15.3 8.6 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................. 1.9 Q Q Q Q 0.6 0.4 0.3 Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central

  19. Total...................................................................

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

    15.2 7.8 1.0 1.2 3.3 1.9 For Two Housing Units............................. 0.9 Q N Q 0.6 N Heat Pump.................................................. 9.2 7.4 0.3 Q 0.7 0.5 Portable Electric Heater............................... 1.6 0.8 Q Q Q 0.3 Other Equipment......................................... 1.9 0.7 Q Q 0.7 Q Fuel Oil........................................................... 7.7 5.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.2 Steam or Hot Water System........................ 4.7 2.9 Q 0.7 0.8 N For One Housing

  20. Total...................................................................

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

    Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................... 65.9 47.5 4.0 2.8 7.9 3.7 Without a Heat Pump.................................. 53.5 37.8 3.4 2.2 7.0 3.1 With a Heat Pump....................................... 12.3 9.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 Window/Wall Units.......................................... 28.9 14.9 2.3 3.5 6.0 2.1 1 Unit........................................................... 14.5 6.6 1.0 1.6 4.2 1.2 2

  1. Total.......................................................................

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

    0.6 15.1 5.5 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 6.9 5.3 1.6 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 13.7 9.8 3.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 9.3 6.8 2.5 2.................................................................. 16.2 2.9 1.9 1.0 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 1.5 1.1 0.4 Number of Laptop PCs

  2. Total.......................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 8.1 5.6 2.5 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 17.5 12.1 5.4 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 11.9 8.4 3.4 2.................................................................. 16.2 3.5 2.2 1.3 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 2.1 1.5 0.6 Number of Laptop PCs

  3. Total.......................................................................

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

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 6.4 2.2 4.2 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 17.8 5.3 12.5 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 11.0 3.4 7.6 2.................................................................. 16.2 4.4 1.3 3.1 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 2.5 0.7 1.8 Number of Laptop PCs

  4. Total........................................................................

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

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q 0.7 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 20.5 25.6 40.3 23.4 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 20.5 25.6 40.1 22.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N Q 0.6 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 11.4 18.4 13.6 14.7 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 6.1

  5. Total........................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q N Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 25.6 17.7 7.9 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 25.6 17.7 7.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 18.4 13.1 5.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 16.2 11.6 4.7 For One Housing

  6. Total........................................................................

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

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q N Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 40.3 21.4 6.9 12.0 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 40.1 21.2 6.9 12.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 Q Q N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 13.6 5.6 2.3 5.7 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 11.0 4.4

  7. Total........................................................................

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

    7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q 0.2 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 7.1 6.8 7.9 11.9 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 7.1 6.6 7.9 11.4 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N Q N 0.5 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 3.8 0.4 3.8 8.4 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 1.8 Q 3.1 6.0

  8. Total...........................................................................

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

    0.6 15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 4.0 2.4 1.7 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 16.5 12.8 3.8 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 16.3 12.6 3.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 0.3 Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 6.0 5.2 0.8 Without a Heat

  9. Total...........................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 2.1 1.8 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 23.5 16.0 7.5 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 23.4 15.9 7.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 Q Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 17.3 11.3 6.0 Without a Heat

  10. Total...........................................................................

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

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 10.3 3.1 7.3 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 13.9 4.5 9.4 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 12.9 4.3 8.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 1.0 Q 0.8 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 10.5 3.9 6.5 Without a Heat

  11. Total.............................................................................

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

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 4.0 2.1 1.4 10.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 16.5 23.5 39.3 13.9 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 16.3 23.4 38.9 12.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.3 Q 0.5 1.0 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 6.0 17.3 32.1 10.5 Without a Heat

  12. Total.............................................................................

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

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 1.2 1.0 0.2 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 4.0 2.7 1.2 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 7.9 5.4 2.5 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 6.0 4.8 1.2 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.6 0.5 Q Less Than Once a

  13. Total.............................................................................

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

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 1.4 1.0 0.4 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 5.8 3.5 2.3 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 10.7 7.8 2.9 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 5.6 4.0 1.6 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 Less Than Once a

  14. Total.............................................................................

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

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 2.1 1.8 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 23.5 16.0 7.5 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 23.4 15.9 7.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 Q Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 17.3 11.3 6.0 Without a Heat

  15. Total.............................................................................

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

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 39.3 20.9 6.7 11.8 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 38.9 20.7 6.6 11.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.5 Q Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 32.1 17.6 5.2 9.3 Without a Heat

  16. Total.............................................................................

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

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 2.6 0.7 1.9 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 6.6 2.0 4.6 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 8.8 2.9 5.8 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 4.7 1.5 3.1 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.7 Q 0.6 Less Than Once a

  17. Total.............................................................................

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

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 10.3 3.1 7.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 13.9 4.5 9.4 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 12.9 4.3 8.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 1.0 Q 0.8 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 10.5 3.9 6.5 Without a Heat

  18. Total.............................................................................

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

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 8.5 2.7 2.6 4.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 38.6 16.2 20.1 18.4 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 37.8 15.9 19.8 18.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 25.8 10.9 16.6 12.5 Without a Heat

  19. Total..............................................................................

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

    20.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 4.0 2.1 1.4 10.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 16.5 23.5 39.3 13.9 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 16.3 23.4 38.9 12.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.3 Q 0.5 1.0 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 6.0 17.3 32.1 10.5

  20. Total..............................................................................

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

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 39.3 20.9 6.7 11.8 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 38.9 20.7 6.6 11.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.5 Q Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 32.1 17.6 5.2 9.3 Without a

  1. Total..............................................................................

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

    111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer .......................... 35.5 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.1 Use a Personal Computer....................................... 75.6 4.2 5.0 5.3 9.0 Number of Desktop PCs 1......................................................................... 50.3 3.1 3.4 3.4 5.4 2......................................................................... 16.2 0.7 1.1 1.2 2.2 3 or More............................................................ 9.0 0.3

  2. Total..............................................................................

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

    7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 8.5 2.7 2.6 4.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 38.6 16.2 20.1 18.4 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 37.8 15.9 19.8 18.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 25.8 10.9 16.6 12.5

  3. Total....................................................................................

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

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 6.9 8.1 14.2 6.4 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 13.7 17.5 26.6 17.8 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 10.4 14.1 20.5 13.7 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 3.3 3.4 6.1 4.1 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  4. Total....................................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 8.1 5.6 2.5 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 17.5 12.1 5.4 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 14.1 10.0 4.0 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 3.4 2.1 1.3 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  5. Total....................................................................................

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

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day................................................. 8.2 3.0 1.6 0.3 1.1 2 Times A Day.............................................................. 24.6 8.3 4.2 1.3 2.7 Once a Day................................................................... 42.3 15.0 8.1 2.7 4.2 A Few Times Each Week............................................. 27.2 10.9 6.0 1.8 3.1 About Once a Week..................................................... 3.9

  6. Total....................................................................................

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

    Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 14.2 7.2 2.8 4.2 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 26.6 14.5 4.1 7.9 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 20.5 11.0 3.4 6.1 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 6.1 3.5 0.7 1.9 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  7. Total....................................................................................

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

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 6.4 2.2 4.2 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 17.8 5.3 12.5 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 13.7 4.2 9.5 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 4.1 1.1 3.0 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  8. Total....................................................................................

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

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day................................................. 8.2 3.7 1.6 1.4 1.5 2 Times A Day.............................................................. 24.6 10.8 4.1 4.3 5.5 Once a Day................................................................... 42.3 17.0 7.2 8.7 9.3 A Few Times Each Week............................................. 27.2 11.4 4.7 6.4 4.8 About Once a Week.....................................................

  9. Total....................................................................................

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

    111.1 47.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 16.9 6.5 4.6 7.6 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 30.3 12.5 18.1 14.7 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 22.9 9.8 14.1 11.9 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 7.4 2.7 4.0 2.9 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  10. Total.........................................................................................

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

    ..... 111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer...................................... 35.5 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.1 Use a Personal Computer.................................................. 75.6 4.2 5.0 5.3 9.0 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model............................................................. 58.6 3.2 3.9 4.0 6.7 Laptop Model................................................................. 16.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.4 Hours Turned on Per Week Less

  11. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Basements Basement in Single-Family Homes and Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings ... Attics Attic in Single-Family Homes and Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings ...

  12. Total

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

    ... Climate region 3 Very coldCold 31,898 30,469 28,057 28,228 21,019 30,542 25,067 Mixed-humid 27,873 26,716 24,044 26,365 21,026 27,096 22,812 Mixed-dryHot-dry 12,037 10,484 7,628 ...

  13. Total..........................................................

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

    Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System......Central Air-Conditioning...... 65.9 1.1 6.4 6.4 ...

  14. Total..........................................................

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

    Income Relative to Poverty Line Below 100 Percent......1.3 1.2 0.8 0.4 1. Below 150 percent of poverty line or 60 percent of median State ...

  15. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More 60,000 to 79,999 ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More 60,000 to 79,999 ...

  16. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Table HC7.4 Space Heating Characteristics by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More Space Heating ...

  17. Total..........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... Table HC7.7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Table HC7.7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ...

  18. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Living Space Characteristics Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 Million ... Living Space Characteristics Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 Million ...

  19. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Table HC7.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty ... Table HC7.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty ...

  20. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Table HC7.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 40,000 to 59,999 60,000 to 79,999 ...

  1. Total

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

    1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.9 786 56 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.2 965 62 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 16.0 994 65 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.9 1,052 72 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 69.9 1,127 80 100,001 to 200,000 90 12,415 11,310 137.9 1,098 89 200,001 to 500,000 38 10,724 10,356 284.2 1,035 99 Over 500,000 8 7,074 9,196 885.0 769 117 Principal building activity Education 389 12,239 10,885 31.5 1,124 53 Food sales 177 1,252 1,172 7.1 1,067 121 Food

  2. Total

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

    1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.9 786 56 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.2 965 62 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 16.0 994 65 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.9 1,052 72 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 69.9 1,127 80 100,001 to 200,000 90 12,415 11,310 137.9 1,098 89 200,001 to 500,000 38 10,724 10,356 284.2 1,035 99 Over 500,000 8 7,074 9,196 885.0 769 117 Principal building activity Education 389 12,239 10,885 31.5 1,124 53 Food sales 177 1,252 1,172 7.1 1,067 121 Food

  3. Total

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

    1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.9 786 56 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.2 965 62 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 16.0 994 65 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.9 1,052 72 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 69.9 1,127 80 100,001 to 200,000 90 12,415 11,310 137.9 1,098 89 200,001 to 500,000 38 10,724 10,356 284.2 1,035 99 Over 500,000 8 7,074 9,196 885.0 769 117 Principal building activity Education 389 12,239 10,885 31.5 1,124 53 Food sales 177 1,252 1,172 7.1 1,067 121 Food

  4. Total

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

    Median square feet per building (thousand) Median square feet per worker Median operating hours per week Median age of buildings (years) All buildings 5,557 87,093 88,182 5.0 1,029 50 32 Building floorspace (square feet) 1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.8 821 49 37 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.0 1,167 50 31 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 15.0 1,444 56 32 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.0 1,461 60 29 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 67.0 1,442 60 26 100,001 to 200,000 90

  5. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Type of Renter-Occupied Housing Unit Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units ... At Home Behavior Home Used for Business Yes......

  6. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit U.S. Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units ... At Home Behavior Home Used for Business Yes......

  7. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Housing Characteristics Tables Single-Family Units Detached Type of Housing Unit Table ... At Home Behavior Home Used for Business Yes......

  8. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) Living Space ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) Living Space ...

  9. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) City Town Suburbs Rural ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) City Town Suburbs Rural ...

  10. Total..........................................................

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

    ... 41.8 2,603 2,199 1,654 941 795 598 1-Car Garage...... 9.5 2,064 1,664 1,039 775 624 390 2-Car Garage......

  11. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Average Square Feet per Apartment in a -- Apartments (millions) Major Outside Wall Construction Siding (Aluminum, Vinyl, Steel)...... 35.3 3.5 1,286 1,090 325 852 786 461 ...

  12. Total..........................................................

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

    Living Space Characteristics Detached Attached Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Table HC3.2 ...

  13. Total..........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Table HC4.2 Living Space Characteristics by Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2005 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy ...

  14. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Per Household Member Average Square Feet Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Table HC1.2.2 ...

  15. Total..........................................................

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

    ... 111.1 20.6 15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment...... 17.8 4.0 2.4 1.7 Have Cooling Equipment...... 93.3 ...

  16. Massachusetts Nuclear Profile - Power Plants

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

    Power Station Unit 1",685,"5,918",100.0,"Entergy Nuclear Generation Co" "1 Plant 1 Reactor",685,"5,918",100.0 "Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent ...

  17. Nuclear Cleanup, Storage, and Transportation

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ... ***Total capacity if Panels 9 and 10 filled to proposed ... power plants? Should new nuclear plants provide adequate on-site spent fuel storage for all of the SNF that ...

  18. Nuclear Energy!

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

    Nuclear Energy Technical Assistance Nuclear Energy Technical Assistance "The United States will continue to promote the safe and secure use of nuclear power worldwide through a variety of bilateral and multilateral engagements. For example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission advises international partners on safety and regulatory best practices, and the Department of Energy works with international partners on research and development, nuclear waste and storage, training, regulations,

  19. Nuclear Energy

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

    Stationary Power/Nuclear Energy Nuclear Energy Tara Camacho-Lopez 2016-06-29T14:02:38+00:00 Contributing to the Next Generation of Nuclear Power Generation Our nuclear energy and fuel cycle technologies supports the safe, secure, reliable, and sustainable use of nuclear power worldwide through strengths in repository science, nonproliferation, safety and security, transportation, modeling, and system demonstrations. Areas of Expertise Defense Waste Management Sandia advises the U.S. Department

  20. Risk Analysis Virtual ENvironment

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2014-02-10

    RAVEN has 3 major functionalities: 1. Provides a Graphical User Interface for the pre- and post-processing of the RELAP-7 input and output. 2. Provides the capability to model nuclear power plants control logic for the RELAP-7 code and dynamic control of the accident scenario evolution. This capability is based on a software structure that realizes a direct connection between the RELAP-7 solver engine (MOOSE) and a python environment where the variables describing the plant statusmore » are accessible in a scripting environment. RAVEN support the generation of the probabilistic scenario control by supplying a wide range of probability and cumulative distribution functions and their inverse functions. 3. Provides a general environment to perform probability risk analysis for RELAP-7, RELAP-5 and any generic MOOSE based applications. The probabilistic analysis is performed by sampling the input space of the coupled code parameters and it is enhanced by using modern artificial intelligence algorithms that accelerate the identification of the areas of major risk (in the input parameter space). This environment also provides a graphical visualization capability to analyze the outcomes. Among other approaches, the classical Monte Carlo and Latin Hypercube sampling algorithms are available. For the acceleration of the convergence of the sampling methodologies, Support Vector Machines, Bayesian regression, and collocation stochastic polynomials chaos are implemented. The same methodologies here described could be used to solve optimization and uncertainties propagation problems using the RAVEN framework.« less

  1. Risk Analysis Virtual ENvironment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2014-02-10

    RAVEN has 3 major functionalities: 1. Provides a Graphical User Interface for the pre- and post-processing of the RELAP-7 input and output. 2. Provides the capability to model nuclear power plants control logic for the RELAP-7 code and dynamic control of the accident scenario evolution. This capability is based on a software structure that realizes a direct connection between the RELAP-7 solver engine (MOOSE) and a python environment where the variables describing the plant status are accessible in a scripting environment. RAVEN support the generation of the probabilistic scenario control by supplying a wide range of probability and cumulative distribution functions and their inverse functions. 3. Provides a general environment to perform probability risk analysis for RELAP-7, RELAP-5 and any generic MOOSE based applications. The probabilistic analysis is performed by sampling the input space of the coupled code parameters and it is enhanced by using modern artificial intelligence algorithms that accelerate the identification of the areas of major risk (in the input parameter space). This environment also provides a graphical visualization capability to analyze the outcomes. Among other approaches, the classical Monte Carlo and Latin Hypercube sampling algorithms are available. For the acceleration of the convergence of the sampling methodologies, Support Vector Machines, Bayesian regression, and collocation stochastic polynomials chaos are implemented. The same methodologies here described could be used to solve optimization and uncertainties propagation problems using the RAVEN framework.

  2. International Nuclear Security

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Doyle, James E.

    2012-08-14

    This presentation discusses: (1) Definitions of international nuclear security; (2) What degree of security do we have now; (3) Limitations of a nuclear security strategy focused on national lock-downs of fissile materials and weapons; (4) What do current trends say about the future; and (5) How can nuclear security be strengthened? Nuclear security can be strengthened by: (1) More accurate baseline inventories; (2) Better physical protection, control and accounting; (3) Effective personnel reliability programs; (4) Minimize weapons-usable materials and consolidate to fewer locations; (5) Consider local threat environment when siting facilities; (6) Implement pledges made in the NSS process; and (7) More robust interdiction, emergency response and special operations capabilities. International cooperation is desirable, but not always possible.

  3. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    9 New Hampshire New Hampshire total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 Nuclear 1,247 29.8 10,910 49.2 Coal 546 13.1 3,083 13.9 ...

  4. State Nuclear Profiles 2010

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

    Station Unit 1 1,160 9,556 100.0 Wolf Creek Nuclear Optg Corp 1 Plant 1 Reactor 1,160 9,556 100.0 Owner Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. ...

  5. EIA - State Nuclear Profiles

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

    Wolf Creek Nuclear Optg Corp 1 Plant 1 Reactor 1,160 9,556 100.0 Note: Totals may not ... 3112045 1,160 9,566 94.0 Data for 2010 PWR Pressurized Light Boiling Water Reactor. ...

  6. Site Map | National Nuclear Security Administration | (NNSA)

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Home Site Map Front page Front page of National Nuclear Security Administration Main menu People Mission Powering the Nuclear Navy Concern for the Environment Protection of People Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants Management and Administration Public Affairs More About NNSA's Naval Reactors Office Emergency Response Counterterrorism Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Preventing Proliferation Managing the Stockpile Dismantlement and Disposition Stockpile Stewardship Program Quarterly Experiments

  7. Nuclear Facilities and Applied Technologies at Sandia

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wheeler, Dave; Kaiser, Krista; Martin, Lonnie; Hanson, Don; Harms, Gary; Quirk, Tom

    2014-11-28

    The Nuclear Facilities and Applied Technologies organization at Sandia National Laboratories Technical Area Five (TA-V) is the leader in advancing nuclear technologies through applied radiation science and unique nuclear environments. This video describes the organizations capabilities, facilities, and culture.

  8. Inspection of the safeguards, security, and safety of special nuclear materials

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-05-29

    The Department of Energy's responsibilities for improving the procedures for the safety and security of special nuclear materials, principally uranium and plutonium, are discussed. Findings focus on the functions performed by the Office of Safeguards and Security of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, and the Operational and Environmental Safety Division of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment. Recommendations range from modifying budget formats with the Office of the Controller so that they reflect total expenditures for safeguarding special nuclear materials to reducing the risk of internal theft or diversion of nuclear materials. We also recommend that policy statements, annual and semi-annual reports, and design guidelines relating to the entire program of security and safety of special nuclear materials be completed as soon as possible. In addition, continuous effort is needed to ensure the autonomy of safeguards offices within field offices.

  9. Nuclear forensics: Soil content

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beebe, Merilyn Amy

    2015-08-31

    Nuclear Forensics is a growing field that is concerned with all stages of the process of creating and detonating a nuclear weapon. The main goal is to prevent nuclear attack by locating and securing nuclear material before it can be used in an aggressive manner. This stage of the process is mostly paperwork; laws, regulations, treaties, and declarations made by individual countries or by the UN Security Council. There is some preliminary leg work done in the form of field testing detection equipment and tracking down orphan materials; however, none of these have yielded any spectacular or useful results. In the event of a nuclear attack, the first step is to analyze the post detonation debris to aid in the identification of the responsible party. This aspect of the nuclear forensics process, while reactive in nature, is more scientific. A rock sample taken from the detonation site can be dissolved into liquid form and analyzed to determine its chemical composition. The chemical analysis of spent nuclear material can provide valuable information if properly processed and analyzed. In order to accurately evaluate the results, scientists require information on the natural occurring elements in the detonation zone. From this information, scientists can determine what percentage of the element originated in the bomb itself rather than the environment. To this end, element concentrations in soils from sixty-nine different cities are given, along with activity concentrations for uranium, thorium, potassium, and radium in various building materials. These data are used in the analysis program Python.

  10. Nuclear Materials Management & Safeguards System | National Nuclear...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    About Our Programs Nuclear Security Nuclear Materials Management & Safeguards System NMMSS U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Materials ...