Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


1

Table 1c. Off-Site Produced Energy (Site Energy)For Selected Industries,  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

c c Page Last Modified: May 2010 Table 1c. Off-Site Produced Energy (Site Energy) for Selected Industries, 1998, 2002 and 2006 (Trillion Btu) MECS Survey Years NAICS Subsector and Industry 1998 2002 2006 311 Food 992 1,079 1,124 312 Beverage and Tobacco Products 109 104 101 313 Textile Mills 255 206 178 314 Textile Product Mills 49 60 72 315 Apparel 48 30 14 316 Leather and Allied Products 8 7 3 321 Wood Products 285 198 296 322 Paper 1,648 1,413 1,350 323 Printing and Related Support 97 98 85 324 Petroleum and Coal Products 1,475 1,290 1,434 325 Chemicals 3,377 3,154 2,772 326 Plastics and Rubber Products 327 347 336 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Products 921 960 1,105 331 Primary Metals 2,010 1,614 1,353 332 Fabricated Metal Products 441 387 396

2

OFF-SITE S  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

S S e T B ~ I L L ~ C E ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL E N V I R O N M E N T A L R E S E A R C H CENTER from July through December 197C / t i o n a l Environmental Research Centeq U. S. ~ ~ I R O N M E L S T P ~ TR~ECTIQN AGENCY e Unders tancling No. 23 (26-1)-539 for the U. S o ATOMIC ENERGY COlQ4ISSION OFF-SITE SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL E N V I R O N M E N T A L RESEARCH CENTER from July through December 197C by Monitoring Operations Laboratory National Environmental Research Center U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL P R O T E C T I O N AGENCY Las Vegas , Nevada Published February 1974 This work performed under a Memorandum of Understanding No. AT (26-1)-539 for the U . S. A T O M I C ENERGY C O M M I S S I O N ABSTRACT During t h e period J u l y through December 1970, s i x announced underground n u c l e a r tests were conducted a t t h e Nevada T

3

Off-site nuclear emergency management  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......Capabilities and Challenges Off-site nuclear...manual ENATOM. The integration of monitoring data...several exercises. SUSTAINABLE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS...Moreover, nuclear energy is not popular...several exercises. SUSTAINABLE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS...Moreover, nuclear energy is not popular......

H. Miska

2004-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

4

Brad Hanson, UC Davis 1 OFF-SITE MOVEMENT OF  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

2/21/2012 2012 CWSS Brad Hanson, UC Davis 1 OFF-SITE MOVEMENT OF HERBICIDES Brad Hanson UC Davis the potency of the herbicide 2012 Weed School Environmental Fate of Herbicides Off-site movement of herbicides in groundwater 2012 Weed School Environmental Fate of Herbicides Off-site movement of herbicides

Hanson, Brad

5

Table 4-3 Site Wide Environmental Management Matrix  

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

Table 4-3. Site-Wide Environmental Management Matrix National Renewable Energy Laboratory's South Table Mountain Complex FINAL POTENTIAL ISSUES PROGRAM OF IMPROVEMENTS Off- Site...

6

@BristolUniLib bristol.ac.uk/library Remote (off-site) access  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Library @BristolUniLib bristol.ac.uk/library Remote (off-site) access As a member of the University network you may use one of the following options to gain network access from off-site: Remote Desktop.bristol.ac.uk/it-services/ advice/homeusers/remote/studentdesktop. Off-site Proxy The off-site proxy allows use of University web

Bristol, University of

7

A Fully Automated Fault-tolerant System for Distributed Video Processing and Off-site Replication  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

A Fully Automated Fault-tolerant System for Distributed Video Processing and Off-site Replication been a failure-prone tedious operation with an operator needed to babysit the processing and off-site, off-site replication, fault-tolerance, grid, educational research. 1. INTRODUCTION In different fields

Wisconsin at Madison, University of

8

Revised 6.2.09 GradCare off-site registration form  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Care off-site registration form For University of Michigan students enrolled in off-campus academic study or other off-site field placement. Instructions To obtain expanded coverage outside the GradCare network ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Off-site address City State Zip Dependents (spouse, other qualified adult, children, etc) ­ complete

Shyy, Wei

9

Major accidents scenarios used for LUP and off-site emergency planning : Importance of kinetic description  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Major accidents scenarios used for LUP and off-site emergency planning : Importance of kinetic, INERIS shows a method enabling to integrate, as a second prioritisation criteria, the on-site and off-site. Keywords : Land Use Planning ; off-site emergency planning ; chemical accident scenario ; kinetic 1

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

10

System transient response to loss of off-site power  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A simultaneous trip of the reactor, main circulation pumps, secondary coolant pumps, and pressurizer pump due to loss of off-site power at the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) located at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has been analyzed to estimate available safety margin. A computer model based on the Modular Modeling System code has been used to calculate the transient response of the system. The reactor depressurizes from 482.7 psia down to about 23 psia in about 50 seconds and remains stable thereafter. Available safety margin has been estimated in terms of the incipient boiling heat flux ratio. It is a conservative estimate due to assumed less than available primary and secondary flows and higher than normal depressurization rate. The ratio indicates no incipient boiling conditions at the hot spot. No potential damage to the fuel is likely to occur during this transient. 2 refs., 6 figs.

Sozer, A.

1990-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

11

EA-1061: The Off-site Volume Reduction of Low-level Radioactive Waste From  

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

1: The Off-site Volume Reduction of Low-level Radioactive 1: The Off-site Volume Reduction of Low-level Radioactive Waste From the Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina EA-1061: The Off-site Volume Reduction of Low-level Radioactive Waste From the Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina SUMMARY This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposal for off-site volume reduction of low-level radioactive wastes generated at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site located near Aiken, South Carolina. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES None available at this time. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD July 28, 1995 EA-1061: Finding of No Significant Impact The Off-site Volume Reduction of Low-level Radioactive Waste From the Savannah River Site July 28, 1995 EA-1061: Final Environmental Assessment The Off-site Volume Reduction of Low-level Radioactive Waste From the

12

COT"IPREITENS IVE RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY OFF-SITE PROPERTY P NIAGARA FALIS STORAGE SITE  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

COT"IPREITENS IVE RADIOLOGICAL COT"IPREITENS IVE RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY OFF-SITE PROPERTY P NIAGARA FALIS STORAGE SITE LEWISTON, NEW YORK Prepared for U.S. DePartment of EnergY as part of the Formerly Utilized Sites - Remedial ActLon Program J . D . B e r g e r P r o j e c t S t a f f J. Burden* w.L. Smlth* R.D. Condra T.J. Sowell J.S . Epler* G.M. S tePhens P.Iil. Frame L.B. Taus* W . 0 . H e l t o n C . F . W e a v e r R . C . G o s s l e e B . S . Z a c h a r e k d I I Prepared bY Radiological Slte Assessoent Progran Manpower Educailon Research, and Training Dlvision Oak Ridge Assoclated Universlties Oak Ridge, Tennessee 3783f-0117 I FINAL REPORT March 1984 Thts report ls based on work performed under contract number DE-AC05-760R00033 wiLh the DePartment of EnergY. *Evaluatlon Research Corporatlon, Oak Ridge, Tennessee TABLE OF CONTENTS L i s t o f F i g u

13

EIS-0243: Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada |  

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

3: Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of 3: Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada EIS-0243: Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada Summary This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the management of low-level waste (LLW) at all sites and continue, to the extent practicable, disposal of on- site LLW at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico, the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) in Tennessee, and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. Public Comment Opportunities None available at this time. Documents Available for Download November 3, 2003 EIS-0243-SA-02: Supplement Analysis Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada to Address

14

Off-Site Movement of Herbicides Brad Hanson, University of California, Davis, Dept. of Plant Sciences, bhanson@ucdavis.edu  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Off-Site Movement of Herbicides Brad Hanson, University of California, Davis, Dept. of Plant structure. There are four primary ways that herbicides can move off-site: volatilization, physical particle for any type of off-site herbicide movement is greatly affected by the chemistry of the specific herbicide

Hanson, Brad

15

DOEIEA-1061 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE OFF-SITE VOLUME REDUCTION OF  

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

61 61 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE OFF-SITE VOLUME REDUCTION OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FROM THE SAVANNAH IUVER SITE JULY 1995 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SAVANNAH RIVER OPERATIONS OFFICE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE A . RECEIVED Finding of No Significant Impact for the JAN 3 1 19% Off-Site Volume Reduction of Low-Level Radioactive Waste - from the Savannah River Site O S T I Agency: Action: U . S. Department of Energy Finding of No Significant Impact Summary: The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) (DOEM-1061) for the proposed off-site volume duction of low-bel radioactive wastes (LLW) generated at the Savannah River Site (SRS), near Aiken,South Carolina. Based on the analyses in the EA, DOE has determined that the proposed

16

Introduction: Off-site nuclear emergency management?capabilities and challenges  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......those concerned with nuclear emergency and post...management (in either a policy, operational or...area whether in an policy, operational or...Introduction: off-site nuclear emergency management...those concerned with nuclear emergency and post...management (in either a policy, operational or......

Johann-Klaus Hohenberg; Neale Kelly

2004-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

17

Table  

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

Muons Muons in B-100 Bone-equivalent plastic Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.52740 1.450 85.9 0.05268 3.7365 0.1252 3.0420 3.4528 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.435 7.435 7.443 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.803 5.803 1.360 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.535 4.535 2.543 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.521 3.521 5.080 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.008 3.008 8.173 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.256 2.256 2.401 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.115 2.115 3.319 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.971 1.971 5.287 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.889 1.889 8.408 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.859 0.000 1.859 1.376 × 10 2 314. MeV 4.065 × 10 2 1.859 0.000 1.859 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.866 0.000 1.866 1.913 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.940 0.000 0.000 1.940 4.016 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.973 0.000 0.000 1.974 5.037 × 10 2 1.40

18

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Sodium monoxide Na 2 O Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.48404 2.270 148.8 0.07501 3.6943 0.1652 2.9793 4.1892 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.330 6.330 8.793 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 4.955 4.956 1.601 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.883 3.884 2.984 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.024 3.024 5.943 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.588 2.588 9.541 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.954 1.954 2.789 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.840 1.840 3.846 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.725 1.725 6.102 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.663 1.664 9.656 × 10 1 283. MeV 3.738 × 10 2 1.646 0.000 1.647 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.647 0.000 1.647 1.571 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.659 0.000 1.660 2.177 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.738 0.000 0.000 1.738 4.531 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.771 0.000 0.000 1.772 5.670 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

19

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Tissue-equivalent gas (Propane based) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.55027 1.826 × 10 -3 59.5 0.09802 3.5159 1.5139 3.9916 9.3529 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 8.132 8.132 6.782 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.337 6.337 1.241 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.943 4.944 2.326 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.831 3.831 4.656 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.269 3.269 7.500 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.450 2.450 2.209 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.303 2.303 3.053 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.158 2.158 4.855 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.084 2.084 7.695 × 10 1 263. MeV 3.527 × 10 2 2.068 0.000 2.069 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 2.071 0.000 2.072 1.252 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 2.097 0.000 2.097 1.732 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.232 0.000 0.000 2.232 3.580 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.289 0.000 0.000 2.290

20

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Lead oxide (PbO) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.40323 9.530 766.7 0.19645 2.7299 0.0356 3.5456 6.2162 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.046 4.046 1.411 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.207 3.207 2.532 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.542 2.542 4.656 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.003 2.003 9.146 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.727 1.727 1.455 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.327 1.327 4.176 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.256 1.256 5.729 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.188 1.189 9.017 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.158 1.158 1.415 × 10 2 236. MeV 3.250 × 10 2 1.155 0.000 1.155 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.161 0.000 0.000 1.161 2.279 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.181 0.000 0.000 1.181 3.133 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.266 0.001 0.000 1.267 6.398 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.299 0.001 0.000 1.301 7.955 × 10 2 1.40

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


21

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Liquid argon (Ar) Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 18 (Ar) 39.948 (1) 1.396 188.0 0.19559 3.0000 0.2000 3.0000 5.2146 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 5.687 5.687 9.833 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 4.461 4.461 1.786 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.502 3.502 3.321 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.731 2.731 6.598 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.340 2.340 1.058 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.771 1.771 3.084 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.669 1.670 4.250 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.570 1.570 6.732 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.518 1.519 1.063 × 10 2 266. MeV 3.567 × 10 2 1.508 0.000 1.508 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.509 0.000 1.510 1.725 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.526 0.000 0.000 1.526 2.385 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.610 0.000 0.000 1.610 4.934 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.644 0.000 0.000 1.645 6.163

22

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Freon-13 (CF 3 Cl) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.47966 0.950 126.6 0.07238 3.5551 0.3659 3.2337 4.7483 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.416 6.416 8.659 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.019 5.019 1.578 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.930 3.930 2.945 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.057 3.057 5.870 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.615 2.615 9.430 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.971 1.971 2.760 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.857 1.857 3.809 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.745 1.745 6.041 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.685 1.685 9.551 × 10 1 283. MeV 3.738 × 10 2 1.668 0.000 1.668 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.668 0.000 1.668 1.553 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.681 0.000 1.681 2.151 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.762 0.000 0.000 1.763 4.473 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.796 0.000 0.000 1.797 5.596 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

23

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Lutetium silicon oxide [Lu 2 SiO 5 ] Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.42793 7.400 472.0 0.20623 3.0000 0.2732 3.0000 5.4394 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.679 4.679 1.209 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.692 3.693 2.181 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.916 2.916 4.029 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.287 2.287 7.953 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.968 1.968 1.270 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.503 1.503 3.666 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.421 1.422 5.038 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.344 1.344 7.944 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.308 1.308 1.248 × 10 2 242. MeV 3.316 × 10 2 1.304 1.304 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.309 0.000 0.000 1.309 2.014 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.329 0.000 0.000 1.329 2.773 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.415 0.001 0.000 1.416 5.684 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.449 0.001 0.000 1.450 7.080

24

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Boron oxide (B 2 O 3 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.49839 1.812 99.6 0.11548 3.3832 0.1843 2.7379 3.6027 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.889 6.889 8.045 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.381 5.381 1.468 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.208 4.208 2.744 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.269 3.269 5.477 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.794 2.794 8.807 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.102 2.103 2.583 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.975 1.975 3.567 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.843 1.843 5.674 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.768 1.768 9.010 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.742 0.000 1.742 1.472 × 10 2 307. MeV 3.990 × 10 2 1.742 0.000 1.742 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.750 0.000 1.750 2.045 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.822 0.000 0.000 1.823 4.285 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.854 0.000 0.000 1.855 5.373 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

25

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Liquid H-note density shift (H 2 ) Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 1 (H) 1.00794 (7) 7.080 × 10 -2 21.8 0.32969 3.0000 0.1641 1.9641 2.6783 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 16.508 16.508 3.316 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 12.812 12.812 6.097 × 10 -1 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 9.956 9.956 1.147 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 7.684 7.684 2.307 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 6.539 6.539 3.727 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 4.870 4.870 1.105 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 4.550 4.550 1.531 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 4.217 4.217 2.448 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 4.018 0.000 4.018 3.912 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 3.926 0.000 3.926 6.438 × 10 1 356. MeV 4.497 × 10 2 3.919 0.000 3.919 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 3.922 0.000 3.922 8.988 × 10 1 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 4.029 0.000 4.030 1.906 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 4.084 0.001

26

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Cortical bone (ICRP) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.52130 1.850 106.4 0.06198 3.5919 0.1161 3.0919 3.6488 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.142 7.142 7.765 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.581 5.581 1.417 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.366 4.366 2.646 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.393 3.393 5.281 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.900 2.901 8.489 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.179 2.179 2.489 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.044 2.044 3.440 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.907 1.907 5.475 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.830 1.830 8.700 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.803 0.000 1.803 1.422 × 10 2 303. MeV 3.950 × 10 2 1.803 0.000 1.803 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.812 0.000 1.812 1.976 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.888 0.000 0.000 1.889 4.138 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.922 0.000 0.000 1.923 5.187 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

27

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Freon-13B1 (CF 3 Br) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.45665 1.500 210.5 0.03925 3.7194 0.3522 3.7554 5.3555 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 5.678 5.678 9.844 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 4.454 4.454 1.788 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.498 3.498 3.325 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.729 2.729 6.606 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.339 2.339 1.059 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.771 1.771 3.086 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.671 1.671 4.251 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.574 1.574 6.729 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.524 1.524 1.062 × 10 2 266. MeV 3.567 × 10 2 1.513 0.000 1.513 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.515 0.000 1.515 1.721 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.531 0.000 0.000 1.532 2.378 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.616 0.000 0.000 1.616 4.919 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.650 0.001 0.000 1.651 6.142 × 10 2 1.40 GeV

28

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Sodium carbonate (Na 2 CO 3 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.49062 2.532 125.0 0.08715 3.5638 0.1287 2.8591 3.7178 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.575 6.575 8.449 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.142 5.142 1.540 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.026 4.026 2.874 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.131 3.131 5.729 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.679 2.679 9.204 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.017 2.017 2.695 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.895 1.895 3.721 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.771 1.772 5.914 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.703 1.703 9.381 × 10 1 298. MeV 3.894 × 10 2 1.681 0.000 1.681 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.681 0.000 1.681 1.531 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.690 0.000 1.691 2.125 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.764 0.000 0.000 1.764 4.440 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.796 0.000 0.000 1.797 5.563 × 10 2 1.40

29

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Tungsten hexafluoride (WF 6 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.42976 2.400 354.4 0.03658 3.5134 0.3020 4.2602 5.9881 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.928 4.928 1.143 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.880 3.880 2.067 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.057 3.057 3.828 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.393 2.393 7.574 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.056 2.056 1.211 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.565 1.565 3.509 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.479 1.479 4.827 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.396 1.396 7.623 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.353 1.353 1.200 × 10 2 253. MeV 3.431 × 10 2 1.346 0.000 1.346 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.349 0.000 0.000 1.349 1.942 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.367 0.000 0.000 1.367 2.679 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.451 0.001 0.000 1.452 5.516 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.485 0.001 0.000 1.486 6.877

30

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Standard rock Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.50000 2.650 136.4 0.08301 3.4120 0.0492 3.0549 3.7738 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.619 6.619 8.400 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.180 5.180 1.530 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.057 4.057 2.854 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.157 3.157 5.687 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.701 2.702 9.133 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.028 2.029 2.675 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.904 1.904 3.695 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.779 1.779 5.878 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.710 1.710 9.331 × 10 1 297. MeV 3.884 × 10 2 1.688 0.000 1.688 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.688 0.000 1.688 1.523 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.698 0.000 1.698 2.114 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.774 0.000 0.000 1.775 4.418 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.808 0.000 0.000 1.808 5.534 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502 × 10

31

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Ceric sulfate dosimeter solution Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.55279 1.030 76.7 0.07666 3.5607 0.2363 2.8769 3.5212 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.909 7.909 6.989 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.170 6.170 1.278 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.819 4.819 2.391 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.739 3.739 4.779 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.193 3.193 7.693 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.398 2.398 2.261 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.255 2.255 3.123 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.102 2.102 4.968 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.013 2.014 7.896 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.980 0.000 1.980 1.292 × 10 2 317. MeV 4.096 × 10 2 1.979 0.000 1.979 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.986 0.000 1.986 1.797 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.062 0.000 0.000 2.062 3.774 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.096 0.000 0.000 2.097 4.735 × 10

32

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Silicon Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 14 (Si) 28.0855 (3) 2.329 173.0 0.14921 3.2546 0.2015 2.8716 4.4355 0.14 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.363 6.363 8.779 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 4.987 4.987 1.595 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.912 3.912 2.969 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.047 3.047 5.905 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.608 2.608 9.476 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.965 1.965 2.770 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.849 1.849 3.822 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.737 1.737 6.064 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.678 1.678 9.590 × 10 1 273. MeV 3.633 × 10 2 1.664 0.000 1.664 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.665 0.000 1.666 1.559 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.681 0.000 1.681 2.157 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.767 0.000 0.000 1.768 4.475 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.803 0.000 0.000 1.804 5.595 × 10 2 1.40 GeV

33

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Polyethylene terephthalate (Mylar) (C 10 H 8 O 4 ) n Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.52037 1.400 78.7 0.12679 3.3076 0.1562 2.6507 3.3262 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.420 7.420 7.451 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.789 5.789 1.362 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.522 4.522 2.548 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.509 3.509 5.093 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.997 2.997 8.197 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.250 2.250 2.409 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.108 2.108 3.329 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.963 1.964 5.305 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.880 1.880 8.440 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.849 0.000 1.849 1.382 × 10 2 317. MeV 4.096 × 10 2 1.848 0.000 1.849 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.855 0.000 1.855 1.922 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.926 0.000 0.000 1.926 4.039 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.958 0.000 0.000 1.959

34

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Dichlorodiethyl ether C 4 Cl 2 H 8 O Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.51744 1.220 103.3 0.06799 3.5250 0.1773 3.1586 4.0135 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.117 7.117 7.789 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.561 5.561 1.421 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.349 4.349 2.655 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.380 3.380 5.300 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.889 2.889 8.521 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.174 2.174 2.499 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.042 2.042 3.450 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.907 1.907 5.486 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.832 1.832 8.708 × 10 1 298. MeV 3.894 × 10 2 1.807 0.000 1.807 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.807 0.000 1.807 1.422 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.817 0.000 1.817 1.974 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.895 0.000 0.000 1.896 4.129 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.930 0.000 0.000 1.931 5.174 × 10

35

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Lead Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 82 (Pb) 207.2 (1) 11.350 823.0 0.09359 3.1608 0.3776 3.8073 6.2018 0.14 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 3.823 3.823 1.524 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.054 3.054 2.705 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.436 2.436 4.927 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 1.928 1.928 9.600 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.666 1.666 1.521 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.283 1.283 4.338 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.215 1.215 5.943 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.151 1.152 9.339 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.124 1.124 1.463 × 10 2 226. MeV 3.145 × 10 2 1.122 0.000 1.123 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.130 0.000 0.000 1.131 2.352 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.151 0.000 0.000 1.152 3.228 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.237 0.001 0.000 1.238 6.572 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.270 0.001 0.000 1.272 8.165 × 10 2 1.40

36

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Sodium iodide (NaI) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.42697 3.667 452.0 0.12516 3.0398 0.1203 3.5920 6.0572 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.703 4.703 1.202 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.710 3.710 2.169 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.928 2.928 4.009 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.297 2.297 7.917 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.975 1.975 1.264 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.509 1.509 3.652 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.427 1.427 5.019 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.347 1.348 7.916 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.310 1.310 1.245 × 10 2 243. MeV 3.325 × 10 2 1.305 1.305 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.310 0.000 0.000 1.310 2.010 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.329 0.000 0.000 1.330 2.768 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.417 0.001 0.000 1.418 5.677 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.452 0.001 0.000 1.453 7.070 × 10 2 1.40 GeV

37

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Polyvinyl alcohol (C 2 H3-O-H) n Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.54480 1.300 69.7 0.11178 3.3893 0.1401 2.6315 3.1115 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.891 7.891 6.999 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.153 6.153 1.280 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.804 4.804 2.396 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.726 3.726 4.793 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.181 3.181 7.717 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.383 2.384 2.270 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.231 2.232 3.140 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.076 2.076 5.007 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.986 1.986 7.974 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.950 0.000 1.950 1.307 × 10 2 324. MeV 4.161 × 10 2 1.949 0.000 1.949 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.955 0.000 1.955 1.820 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.026 0.000 0.000 2.026 3.830 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.059 0.000 0.000 2.059 4.809 × 10 2 1.40

38

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Cesium Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 55 (Cs)132.9054519 (2) 1.873 488.0 0.18233 2.8866 0.5473 3.5914 6.9135 0.14 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.464 4.464 1.277 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.532 3.532 2.294 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.794 2.794 4.224 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.195 2.195 8.315 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.890 1.890 1.325 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.444 1.444 3.820 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.366 1.366 5.248 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.291 1.291 8.274 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.257 1.257 1.300 × 10 2 236. MeV 3.250 × 10 2 1.254 1.254 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.261 0.000 0.000 1.261 2.096 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.284 0.000 0.000 1.285 2.882 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.378 0.001 0.000 1.380 5.881 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.415 0.001 0.000 1.417 7.311 × 10 2

39

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Propane (C 3 H 8 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.58962 1.868 × 10 -3 47.1 0.09916 3.5920 1.4339 3.8011 8.7939 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 8.969 8.969 6.137 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.982 6.982 1.125 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 5.441 5.441 2.109 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 4.212 4.213 4.228 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.592 3.592 6.815 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.688 2.688 2.010 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.525 2.526 2.780 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.365 2.365 4.424 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.281 2.281 7.018 × 10 1 267. MeV 3.577 × 10 2 2.262 0.000 2.263 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 2.265 0.000 2.265 1.143 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 2.291 0.000 2.291 1.582 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.434 0.000 0.000 2.435 3.275 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.495 0.000 0.000 2.496 4.086 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

40

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Polystyrene ([C 6 H 5 CHCH 2 ] n ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.53768 1.060 68.7 0.16454 3.2224 0.1647 2.5031 3.2999 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.803 7.803 7.077 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.084 6.084 1.294 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.749 4.749 2.424 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.683 3.683 4.848 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.144 3.144 7.806 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.359 2.359 2.296 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.210 2.211 3.174 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.058 2.058 5.059 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.970 1.971 8.049 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.937 0.000 1.937 1.318 × 10 2 318. MeV 4.105 × 10 2 1.936 0.000 1.936 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.942 0.000 1.943 1.834 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.015 0.000 0.000 2.015 3.856 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.048 0.000 0.000 2.049 4.841 × 10 2 1.40

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


41

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Air (dry, 1 atm) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.49919 1.205 × 10 -3 85.7 0.10914 3.3994 1.7418 4.2759 10.5961 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.039 7.039 7.862 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.494 5.495 1.436 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.294 4.294 2.686 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.333 3.333 5.366 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.847 2.847 8.633 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.140 2.140 2.535 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.013 2.014 3.501 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.889 1.889 5.562 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.827 1.827 8.803 × 10 1 257. MeV 3.471 × 10 2 1.815 0.000 1.816 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.819 0.000 1.819 1.430 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.844 0.000 1.844 1.977 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.968 0.000 0.000 1.968 4.074 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.020 0.000 0.000 2.021 5.077 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

42

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Lead tungstate (PbWO 4 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.41315 8.300 600.7 0.22758 3.0000 0.4068 3.0023 5.8528 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 4.333 4.333 1.311 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.426 3.426 2.360 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.710 2.711 4.350 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.131 2.131 8.566 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.835 1.835 1.365 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.406 1.406 3.931 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.331 1.331 5.397 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.261 1.261 8.498 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.231 1.231 1.333 × 10 2 227. MeV 3.154 × 10 2 1.229 1.230 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.237 0.000 0.000 1.238 2.145 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.260 0.000 0.000 1.260 2.946 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.349 0.001 0.000 1.350 6.007 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.383 0.001 0.000 1.385 7.469 × 10 2 1.40

43

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Carbon (compact) Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 6 (C) [12.0107 (8)] 2.265 78.0 0.26142 2.8697 -0.0178 2.3415 2.8680 0.12 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.116 7.116 7.772 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.549 5.549 1.420 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.331 4.331 2.658 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.355 3.355 5.318 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.861 2.861 8.567 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.126 2.127 2.531 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.991 1.992 3.505 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.854 1.854 5.597 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.775 1.775 8.917 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.745 0.000 1.745 1.462 × 10 2 317. MeV 4.096 × 10 2 1.745 0.000 1.745 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.751 0.000 1.751 2.034 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.819 0.000 0.000 1.820 4.275 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.850 0.000 0.000 1.851 5.365 × 10

44

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Methanol (CH 3 OH) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.56176 0.791 67.6 0.08970 3.5477 0.2529 2.7639 3.5160 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 8.169 8.169 6.759 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.369 6.369 1.236 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.972 4.972 2.315 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.855 3.855 4.631 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.291 3.291 7.457 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.469 2.469 2.194 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.321 2.322 3.032 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.166 2.166 4.823 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.074 2.074 7.664 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 2.039 0.000 2.039 1.254 × 10 2 318. MeV 4.105 × 10 2 2.038 0.000 2.039 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 2.045 0.000 2.045 1.744 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.121 0.000 0.000 2.122 3.665 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.156 0.000 0.000 2.157 4.600 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502 ×

45

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Carbon (amorphous) Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 6 (C) 12.0107 (8) 2.000 78.0 0.20240 3.0036 -0.0351 2.4860 2.9925 0.10 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.117 7.117 7.771 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.550 5.551 1.420 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.332 4.332 2.658 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.357 3.357 5.317 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.862 2.862 8.564 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.129 2.129 2.529 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.994 1.994 3.502 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.857 1.857 5.591 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.778 1.779 8.905 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.749 0.000 1.749 1.459 × 10 2 313. MeV 4.055 × 10 2 1.749 0.000 1.749 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.755 0.000 1.756 2.030 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.824 0.000 0.000 1.825 4.266 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.855 0.000 0.000 1.856 5.353 × 10

46

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Mix D wax Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.56479 0.990 60.9 0.07490 3.6823 0.1371 2.7145 3.0780 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 8.322 8.322 6.628 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.485 6.486 1.213 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 5.060 5.060 2.273 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.922 3.922 4.549 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.347 3.347 7.327 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.505 2.506 2.158 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.346 2.346 2.985 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.182 2.182 4.761 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.087 2.087 7.584 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 2.049 0.000 2.049 1.243 × 10 2 328. MeV 4.201 × 10 2 2.048 0.000 2.048 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 2.053 0.000 2.053 1.731 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.125 0.000 0.000 2.125 3.647 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.158 0.000 0.000 2.159 4.581 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502 × 10 3 2.213

47

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Sodium nitrate NaNO 3 Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.49415 2.261 114.6 0.09391 3.5097 0.1534 2.8221 3.6502 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.702 6.702 8.281 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.239 5.239 1.510 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.100 4.100 2.820 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.187 3.187 5.624 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.726 2.726 9.039 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.053 2.053 2.648 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.927 1.927 3.656 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.800 1.800 5.814 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.729 1.729 9.228 × 10 1 298. MeV 3.894 × 10 2 1.705 0.000 1.705 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.705 0.000 1.705 1.507 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.714 0.000 1.714 2.092 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.787 0.000 0.000 1.787 4.377 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.819 0.000 0.000 1.819 5.486 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

48

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Freon-12B2 (CF 2 Br 2 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.44901 1.800 284.9 0.05144 3.5565 0.3406 3.7956 5.7976 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 5.330 5.330 1.053 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 4.190 4.190 1.908 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 3.297 3.297 3.540 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 2.577 2.577 7.017 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.212 2.212 1.123 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.680 1.680 3.263 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.586 1.586 4.491 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.496 1.496 7.099 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.452 1.452 1.118 × 10 2 252. MeV 3.421 × 10 2 1.445 0.000 1.445 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.448 0.000 1.449 1.809 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.467 0.000 0.000 1.468 2.496 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.556 0.000 0.000 1.557 5.139 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.592 0.001 0.000 1.593 6.409 × 10 2 1.40 GeV

49

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Eye lens (ICRP) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.54977 1.100 73.3 0.09690 3.4550 0.2070 2.7446 3.3720 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.912 7.912 6.984 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 6.171 6.171 1.277 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.819 4.819 2.390 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.738 3.738 4.779 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.192 3.192 7.693 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.396 2.396 2.262 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.251 2.251 3.125 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 2.095 2.096 4.976 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 2.006 2.006 7.914 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.971 0.000 1.971 1.296 × 10 2 318. MeV 4.105 × 10 2 1.971 0.000 1.971 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.977 0.000 1.977 1.803 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 2.051 0.000 0.000 2.051 3.790 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 2.085 0.000 0.000 2.085 4.756 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502 × 10

50

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Compact bone (ICRU) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.53010 1.850 91.9 0.05822 3.6419 0.0944 3.0201 3.3390 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.406 7.406 7.477 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.783 5.783 1.365 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.521 4.521 2.552 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.511 3.511 5.097 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 3.000 3.000 8.199 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.247 2.247 2.408 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.106 2.106 3.330 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.962 1.962 5.307 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.880 1.880 8.444 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.849 0.000 1.850 1.382 × 10 2 314. MeV 4.065 × 10 2 1.849 0.000 1.849 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.856 0.000 1.857 1.922 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.930 0.000 0.000 1.930 4.036 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.963 0.000 0.000 1.964 5.063 × 10 2 1.40 GeV 1.502

51

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Polyimide film (C 22 H 10 N 2 O 5 ) n Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.51264 1.420 79.6 0.15972 3.1921 0.1509 2.5631 3.3497 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.299 7.299 7.576 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.695 5.695 1.385 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.449 4.449 2.590 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.453 3.453 5.177 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.949 2.949 8.332 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.214 2.214 2.448 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.074 2.074 3.384 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.932 1.932 5.392 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.851 1.851 8.577 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.820 0.000 1.820 1.404 × 10 2 314. MeV 4.065 × 10 2 1.820 0.000 1.820 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.826 0.000 1.827 1.953 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.897 0.000 0.000 1.898 4.102 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.929 0.000 0.000 1.930 5.147 × 10 2 1.40

52

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Silicon dioxide (fused quartz) (SiO 2 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.49930 2.200 139.2 0.08408 3.5064 0.1500 3.0140 4.0560 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 6.591 6.591 8.438 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.158 5.158 1.537 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.041 4.041 2.866 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.145 3.145 5.710 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.691 2.691 9.170 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.030 2.030 2.682 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.908 1.908 3.701 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.786 1.786 5.878 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.719 1.719 9.315 × 10 1 288. MeV 3.788 × 10 2 1.699 0.000 1.699 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.699 0.000 1.699 1.518 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.711 0.000 1.711 2.105 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.789 0.000 0.000 1.790 4.391 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.823 0.000 0.000 1.824 5.497

53

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Radon Z A [g/mol] ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 86 (Rn) [222.01758 (2)]9.066 × 10 -3 794.0 0.20798 2.7409 1.5368 4.9889 13.2839 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 3.782 3.782 1.535 × 10 0 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 3.018 3.018 2.730 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 2.405 2.405 4.980 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 1.902 1.902 9.715 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 1.644 1.644 1.540 × 10 1 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 1.267 1.267 4.394 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 1.201 1.201 6.019 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.140 1.140 9.452 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.116 1.117 1.479 × 10 2 216. MeV 3.039 × 10 2 1.116 1.116 Minimum ionization 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.127 0.000 0.000 1.128 2.372 × 10 2 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.154 0.000 0.000 1.154 3.249 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.258 0.001 0.000 1.260 6.559 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.300 0.001 0.000 1.302 8.119

54

Table  

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

Muons Muons in Solid carbon dioxide (dry ice; CO 2 ) Z/A ρ [g/cm 3 ] I [eV] a k = m s x 0 x 1 C δ 0 0.49989 1.563 85.0 0.43387 3.0000 0.2000 2.0000 3.4513 0.00 T p Ionization Brems Pair prod Photonucl Total CSDA range [MeV/c] [MeV cm 2 /g] [g/cm 2 ] 10.0 MeV 4.704 × 10 1 7.057 7.057 7.841 × 10 -1 14.0 MeV 5.616 × 10 1 5.508 5.508 1.432 × 10 0 20.0 MeV 6.802 × 10 1 4.304 4.304 2.679 × 10 0 30.0 MeV 8.509 × 10 1 3.341 3.341 5.353 × 10 0 40.0 MeV 1.003 × 10 2 2.854 2.854 8.612 × 10 0 80.0 MeV 1.527 × 10 2 2.145 2.145 2.529 × 10 1 100. MeV 1.764 × 10 2 2.017 2.017 3.493 × 10 1 140. MeV 2.218 × 10 2 1.886 1.886 5.554 × 10 1 200. MeV 2.868 × 10 2 1.812 1.812 8.811 × 10 1 300. MeV 3.917 × 10 2 1.787 0.000 1.787 1.438 × 10 2 303. MeV 3.950 × 10 2 1.787 0.000 1.787 Minimum ionization 400. MeV 4.945 × 10 2 1.795 0.000 1.795 1.997 × 10 2 800. MeV 8.995 × 10 2 1.866 0.000 0.000 1.866 4.182 × 10 2 1.00 GeV 1.101 × 10 3 1.896 0.000 0.000 1.897 5.245 × 10

55

Low-level radioactive waste management: transitioning to off-site disposal at Los Alamos National Laboratory  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Facing the closure of nearly all on-site management and disposal capability for low-level radioactive waste (LLW), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is making ready to ship the majority of LLW off-site. In order to ship off-site, waste must meet the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility's (TSDF) Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). In preparation, LANL's waste management organization must ensure LANL waste generators characterize and package waste compliantly and waste characterization documentation is complete and accurate. Key challenges that must be addressed to successfully make the shift to off-site disposal of LLW include improving the detail, accuracy, and quality of process knowledge (PK) and acceptable knowledge (AK) documentation, training waste generators and waste management staff on the higher standard of data quality and expectations, improved WAC compliance for off-site facilities, and enhanced quality assurance throughout the process. Certification of LANL generators will allow direct off-site shipping of LLW from their facilities.

Dorries, Alison M [Los Alamos National Laboratory

2010-11-09T23:59:59.000Z

56

Enforcement Guidance Supplement 98-02: DOE Enforcement Activities where Off-site Transportation Issues are also Present.  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Recently several questions have arisen regarding the scope of Price-Anderson enforcement when transportation issues are directly or indirectly involved in an incident. These questions can be separated into two areas, (1) transportation issues that involve on-site transportation typically not regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT), and (2) transportation issues that involve off-site transportation. This guidance addresses off-site transportation that is regulated by DOT and other state and federal agencies.

57

H FINAL REPORT OF OFF-SITE SURVEILLANCE FOR THE FAULTLESS EVENT,  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

WRHL-Slr WRHL-Slr i, ' H FINAL REPORT OF OFF-SITE SURVEILLANCE FOR THE FAULTLESS EVENT, January 19. 1968 by the Southwe stern Radiological Health Laboratory Department of Health, Education. and Welfare Public Health Service Consume r Protection and Environmental Health Service April 1969 This surveillance perforrned under a Memorandum of Understanding (No. SF 54 373) for the U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of Government sponsored work. Neither the United States, nor the Atomic Energy Commission, nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission: A. makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the in- formation contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not in- fringe privately owned

58

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT F O R THE NEVADA TEST SITE  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

F F O R THE NEVADA TEST SITE ' i A N D OTHER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS January through December 1978 Nuclear Radiation Assessment D i v i s i o n Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Las Vegas, Nevada 89114 October 1979 This work performed under a Memorandum o f Understanding No. EY-76-A-08-0539 for t h e U.S. DEPARTMENT O F ENERGY OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT F O R THE NEVADA TEST SITE A N D OTHER TEST AREAS USED F O R UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS January through December 1978 by R. F. Grossman Nuclear Radi a t i o n Assessment D i v i s i o n Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Las Vegas, Nevada 89114 This work performed under a Memorandum o f Understanding No. EY-76-A-08-0539

59

Time pattern of off-site plutonium deposition from rocky flats plant by lake sediment analyses  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A sediment core from a lake downwind of the Rocky Flats Plant, where nuclear weapons components are produced, was used to reconstruct a time pattern of off-site plutonium deposition. Core sections were dated by analyses of 137Cs, 239,240Pu, 238Pu, and 241Am fallout from nuclear testing and 238Pu fallout from a satellite failure. A peak in transuranic concentrations occurred in late 1969 which was attributable to the Plant. This was confirmed by mass isotopic analysis of plutonium isotopes in selected core segments where the global fallout and Plant contributions could be differentiated. The 18 nCi 239,240Pu per m2 from the Plant that had accumulated in the sediment is reasonable when compared to soil analyses.

Edward P. Hardy; Herbert L. Volchok; Hugh D. Livingston; John C. Burke

1980-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

60

Alternative off-site power supply improves nuclear power plant safety  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract A reliable power system is important for safe operation of the nuclear power plants. The station blackout event is of great importance for nuclear power plant safety. This event is caused by the loss of all alternating current power supply to the safety and non-safety buses of the nuclear power plant. In this study an independent electrical connection between a pumped-storage hydro power plant and a nuclear power plant is assumed as a standpoint for safety and reliability analysis. The pumped-storage hydro power plant is considered as an alternative power supply. The connection with conventional accumulation type of hydro power plant is analysed in addition. The objective of this paper is to investigate the improvement of nuclear power plant safety resulting from the consideration of the alternative power supplies. The safety of the nuclear power plant is analysed through the core damage frequency, a risk measure assess by the probabilistic safety assessment. The presented method upgrades the probabilistic safety assessment from its common traditional use in sense that it considers non-plant sited systems. The obtained results show significant decrease of the core damage frequency, indicating improvement of nuclear safety if hydro power plant is introduced as an alternative off-site power source.

Blae Gjorgiev; Andrija Volkanovski; Duko Kan?ev; Marko ?epin

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


61

Diagnosing and modifying off-site blast effects by seismic means -- A case study  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A series of complaints were received from the owners of a 130 year-old farmhouse that had been converted into a bed and breakfast establishment. It was determined that blast effects were most noticeable on the third floor of the farmhouse. A vibration study was proposed aimed at isolating the actual cause of the perceived vibration. To aid in this determination, a customized, split-cable seismograph utilizing three single component transducers was deployed both in the interior and exterior of the farmhouse for two primary blasts. By utilizing a monitoring technique involving both interior and exterior sensors from a single seismograph, vibration time-histories from the three locations could be time-linked, providing an accurate assessment as to the actual mechanism responsible for the complaints. In this case, the split-cable array provided data indicating a low frequency ground vibration effect. Amplification of structure vibration due to the matching of the natural frequency of the farmhouse and the transmitted ground vibration was identified as the probable cause of the complaints. Given the potential impact of low frequency energy with surrounding properties, an analytical approach based on the concept of linear superpositioning was used to determine optimum delay intervals to reduce the off-site impact of future production blasts. Single-hole test blast data was recorded with traditional seismographs and analyzed using vibration control software. Utilization of recommended blasthole sequencing, combined with a change in blast orientation, resulted in the elimination of complaints at the farmhouse, in reduced vibration values at other neighboring properties and in a reduction in the overall liability exposure.

Brashear, S.; Brush, R.; Cook, B.

1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

62

Idaho Habitat Evaluation for Off-Site Mitigation Record : Annual Report 1987.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has been monitoring and evaluating existing and proposed habitat improvement projects for steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Clearwater and Salmon River drainages over the last four years. Projects included in the evaluation are funded by, or proposed for funding by, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) under the Northwest Power Planning Act as off-site mitigation for downstream hydropower development on the Snake and Columbia rivers. A mitigation record is being developed to use increased smolt production at full seeding as the best measure of benefit from a habitat enhancement project. Determination of full benefit from a project depends on presence of adequate numbers of fish to document actual increases in fish production. The depressed nature of upriver anadromous stocks have precluded attainment of full benefit of any habitat project in Idaho. Partial benefit will be credited to the mitigation record in the interim period of run restoration. According to the BPA Work Plan, project implementors have the primary responsibility for measuring physical habitat and estimating habitat change. To date, Idaho habitat projects have been implemented primarily by the US Forest Service (USFS). The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT) have sponsored three projects (Bear Valley Mine, Yankee Fork, and the proposed East Fork Salmon River projects). IDFG implemented two barrier-removal projects (Johnson Creek and Boulder Creek) that the USFS was unable to sponsor at that time. The role of IDFG in physical habitat monitoring is primarily to link habitat quality and habitat change to changes in actual, or potential, fish production. Individual papers were processed separately for the data base.

Petrosky, Charles E.; Holubetz, Terry B. (Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, ID (USA)

1988-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

63

Idaho Habitat Evaluation for Off-Site Mitigation Record : Annual Report 1985.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Evaluation approaches to document a record of credit for mitigation were developed in 1984-1985 for most of the habitat projects. Restoration of upriver anadromous fish runs through increased passage survival at main stem Columbia and Snake River dams is essential to the establishment of an off-site mitigation record, as well as to the success of the entire Fish and Wildlife program. The mitigation record is being developed to use increased smolt production (i.e., yield) at full-seeding as the basic measure of benefit from a habitat project. The IDFG evaluation approach consists of three basic, integrated levels: general monitoring, standing crop evaluations, and intensive studies. Annual general monitoring of anadromous fish densities in a small number of sections for each project will be used to follow population trends and define full-seeding levels. For most projects, smolt production will be estimated indirectly from standing crop estimates by factoring appropriate survival rates from parr to smolt stages. Intensive studies in a few key production streams will be initiated to determine these appropriate survival rates and provide other basic biological information that is needed for evaluation of the Fish and Wildlife program. A common physical habitat and fish population data base is being developed for every BPA habitat project in Idaho to be integrated at each level of evaluation. Compatibility of data is also needed between Idaho and other agencies and tribes in the Columbia River basin. No final determination of mitigation credit for any Idaho habitat enhancement project has been attainable to date.

Petrosky, Charles E.; Holubetz, Terry B.

1986-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

64

I COMPRE}IENSIVE RADIOLOGICAI SURVEY OFF-SITE PROPERTY N,-NORTS  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

COMPRE}IENSIVE RADIOLOGICAI SURVEY COMPRE}IENSIVE RADIOLOGICAI SURVEY OFF-SITE PROPERTY N,-NORTS NIAGARA FALLS STORAGE SITE LE'l,f ISTON ' NE'l^l YORK P r e p a r e d f o r U . S . D e p a t t m e n t o f E a e r g Y a s p a r t o f t h e F o r m e r l y U t i l i z e d S i t e s - - R e r n e d i a l A c t i o n P r o g r a m J . D . B e r g e r P r o j e c t S t a f f A . J . B o e r n e r W . 0 . E e l t o n R . D " C o n d r a T . J . S o w e l l P . W . F r a m e C . F . W e a v e r R . C . G o s s l e e B . S . Z a c h a r e k Prepared by R a d i o l o g i c a l S i t e A s s e s s m e n t P r o g r a m Manpower Education, Research, and Training Division O a k R i d g e A s s o c i a t e d U n i v e r s i t i e s O a k R i d g e , T e n n e s s e e 3 7 8 3 1 - 0 1 1 7 FINAI. REPORT M a y 1 9 8 4 This report is based on work performed under contract number DE-AC05-760R00033 with the Department of Energy. TAB1E OF CONTENTS L i s t o f F i g u r e s L i s t o f T a b l e s P a g e i i t_ l- t- 1 I 2 5 8 8 4 3 I n t r o d u c t i o n S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n Survey Procedures R e s u I t s

65

Enforcement Guidance Supplement 98-02, DOE Enforcement Activities where Off-site Transporation Issues are also Present  

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

EGS:98-02 Appendix E - Operational Procedures for Enforcement Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 December 15, 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR DOE PAAA COORDINATORS CONTRACTOR PAAA COORDINATORS FROM: R. KEITH CHRISTOPHER DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATION SUBJECT: Enforcement Guidance Supplement 98-02: DOE Enforcement Activities where Off-site Transportation Issues are also Present Section 1.3 of the Operational Procedures for Enforcement, published in June 1998, provides the opportunity to the Office of Enforcement and Investigation to issue clarifying guidance from time to time with respect to the processes used in its enforcement activities. Recently several questions have arisen regarding the scope of Price-Anderson

66

Table Search (or Ranking Tables)  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

;Table Search #3 #12;Outline · Goals of table search · Table search #1: Deep Web · Table search #3 search Table search #1: Deep Web · Table search #3: (setup): Fusion Tables · Table search #2: WebTables ­Version 1: modify document search ­Version 2: recover table semantics #12;Searching the Deep Web store

Halevy, Alon

67

Enforcement Guidance Supplement 98-02: DOE Enforcement Activities where Off-site Transportation Issues are also Present  

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

December 15, 1998 December 15, 1998 MEMORANDUM FOR DOE PAAA COORDINATORS CONTRACTOR PAAA COORDINATORS FROM: R. KEITH CHRISTOPHER DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATION SUBJECT: Enforcement Guidance Supplement 98-02: DOE Enforcement Activities where Off-site Transportation Issues are also Present. Section 1.3 of the Operational Procedures for Enforcement, published in June 1998, provides the opportunity to the Office of Enforcement and Investigation to issue clarifying guidance from time to time with respect to the processes used in its enforcement activities. Recently several questions have arisen regarding the scope of Price-Anderson enforcement when transportation issues are directly or indirectly involved in an incident. These questions can be separated into two areas,

68

Spent nuclear fuel characterization for a bounding reference assembly for the receiving basin for off-site fuel  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Basis for Interim Operation (BIO) for the Receiving Basin for Off-Site Fuel (RBOF) facility at the Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) nuclear materials production complex, developed in accordance with draft DOE-STD-0019-93, required a hazard categorization for the safety analysis section as outlined in DOE-STD-1027-92. The RBOF facility was thus established as a Category-2 facility (having potential for significant on-site consequences from a radiological release) as defined in DOE 5480.23. Given the wide diversity of spent nuclear fuel stored in the RBOF facility, which made a detailed assessment of the total nuclear inventory virtually impossible, the categorization required a conservative calculation based on the concept of a hypothetical, bounding reference fuel assembly integrated over the total capacity of the facility. This scheme not only was simple but also precluded a potential delay in the completion of the BIO.

Kahook, S.D.; Garrett, R.L.; Canas, L.R.; Beckum, M.J. [Westinghouse Savannah River, Aiken, SC (United States)

1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

69

ARM - Instrument Location Table  

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

govInstrumentsLocation Table govInstrumentsLocation Table Instruments Location Table Contacts Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Instrument Locations Site abbreviations explained in the key. Instrument Name Abbreviation NSA SGP TWP AMF C1 C2 EF BF CF EF IF C1 C2 C3 EF IF Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor ACSM Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer AERI Aethalometer AETH Ameriflux Measurement Component AMC Aerosol Observing System AOS Meteorological Measurements associated with the Aerosol Observing System AOSMET Broadband Radiometer Station BRS

70

Spent nuclear fuel characterization for a bounding reference assembly for the receiving basin for off-site fuel  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

A basis for interim operation 1 (BIO) for the receiving basin for off-site fuel (RBOF) facility at the U.S. Department of Energy`s (DOE) Savannah River site nuclear materials production complex has been developed in accordance to draft DOE-STD-0019-93 (Ref. 2). The latter document requires a hazard categorization per DOE-STD-1027-92 (Ref. 3) for the safety analysis portion of the BIO. This classification places the facility in one of three categories as defined in DOE 5480.23 (Ref. 4) per the total radioactivity, which can be released during an accident. The diversity of spent nuclear fuels stored in the RBOF made an exacting assessment of the total radioactive inventory virtually impossible. This restriction led to a conservative calculation based on the concept of a hypothetical bounding reference fuel assembly (RFA) integrated over the total capacity of the facility. The RFA is derived from a systematic ranking of the real assemblies (current and expected) according to a maximum burnup criterion. The indicated scheme is not only simple but precluded a potential delay in the completion of the BIO.

Kahook, S.D.; Garrett, R.L.; Canas, L.R. [Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC (United States)] [and others

1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

71

Off-site Nuclear Emergency Management -Capabilities and Challenges -Salzburg, Austria, 29 September -3 October 2003 Protective Actions in the Late Phase -Intervention Criteria and Decision-making  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

in the late phase of a nuclear or radiological accident where long-lived radionuclides have been dispersed AND COUNTERMEASURES A nuclear accident is normally divided into three phases: a pre-release phase with a time scaleOff-site Nuclear Emergency Management - Capabilities and Challenges - Salzburg, Austria, 29

72

Off-site source recovery project case study: disposal of high activity cobalt 60 sources at the Nevada test site 2008  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Off-Site Source Recovery Project has been operating at Los Alamos National Laboratory since 1998 to address the U.S. Department of Energy responsibility for collection and management of orphaned or disused radioactive sealed sources which may represent a risk to public health and national security if not properly managed.

Cocina, Frank G [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Stewart, William C [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Wald - Hopkins, Mark [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Hageman, John P [SWRI

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

73

AGREEMENT & AUTHORIZATION FOR TELECOMMUTING The Employee named below is hereby authorized to perform work for Fermilab at the residence or off-site office located at  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

FERMILAB AGREEMENT & AUTHORIZATION FOR TELECOMMUTING The Employee named below is hereby authorized to perform work for Fermilab at the residence or off-site office located at understands and agrees that authorization to perform Fermilab job duties away from the Fermilab premises

Quigg, Chris

74

Iodine-131 Releases from Radioactive Lanthanum Processing at the X-10 Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1944-1956)- An Assessment of Quantities released, Off-Site Radiation Doses, and Potential Excess Risks of Thyroid Cancer, Volume 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In the early 1990s, concern about the Oak Ridge Reservation's past releases of contaminants to the environment prompted Tennessee's public health officials to pursue an in-depth study of potential off-site health effects at Oak Ridge. This study, the Oak Ridge dose reconstruction, was supported by an agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the State of Tennessee, and was overseen by a 12-member panel appointed by Tennessee's Commissioner of Health. One of the major contaminants studied in the dose reconstruction was radioactive iodine, which was released to the air by X-10 (now called Oak Ridge National Laboratory) as it processed spent nuclear reactor fuel from 1944 through 1956. The process recovered radioactive lanthanum for use in weapons development. Iodine concentrates in the thyroid gland so health concerns include various diseases of the thyroid, such as thyroid cancer. The large report, ''Iodine-131 Releases from Radioactive Lanthanum Processing at the X-10 Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1944-1956) - An Assessment of Quantities Released, Off-site Radiation Doses, and Potential Excess Risks of Thyroid Cancer,'' is in two volumes. Volume 1 is the main body of the report, and Volume 1A, which has the same title, consists of 22 supporting appendices. Together, these reports serve the following purposes: (1) describe the methodologies used to estimate the amount of iodine-131 (I-131) released; (2) evaluate I-131's pathway from air to vegetation to food to humans; (3) estimate doses received by human thyroids; (4) estimate excess risk of acquiring a thyroid cancer during ones lifetime; and (5) provide equations, examples of historical documents used, and tables of calculated values. Results indicate that females born in 1952 who consumed milk from a goat pastured a few miles east of X-10 received the highest doses from I-131 and would have had the highest risks of contracting thyroid cancer. Doses from cow's milk are considerably less . Detailed dose and risk estimates, and associated uncertainties, for other contaminants studied for the Oak Ridge dose reconstruction are presented in several other technical reports. One way to easily locate them in OSTI's Information Bridge is by searching the ''report number field'' for the number DOE/OR/21981*. Be sure to place the asterisk after the base number so your search can list the complete series of reports related to Oak Ridge Dose Reconstruction.

Apostoaei, A.I.; Burns, R.E.; Hoffman, F.O.; Ijaz, T.; Lewis, C.J.; Nair, S.K.; Widner, T.E.

1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

75

M-1C.  

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

M-1C. M-1C. fTZ. u.s. DEPARTl\IENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETERl\IINATION RECIPI ENT:City of Boston PROJECT TITLE: EECBG· City Of Boston (S) Page 1 01'2 STATE:MA Funding Opportunity Announc:ement Number OE-EEOOOO736/ EEC8G Proc:urementlnstrumcnt Number NEPA Control Number cm Number o Based on my review ofthc information (Onc:crning the proposed adion, as NEPA Complianc:c Offic:cr (authorizcd undcr DOE Order 45I.1A), I havc madc the following dctermination: ex, EA, EIS APPENDIX AND NUMBER: Oescription: 85.1 Actions to conserve energy, demonstrate potential energy conservation, and promote energy-efficiency that do not increase the indoor concentrations of potentially harmful substances. These actions may involve financial and technical

76

Preliminary screening of contaminants in the off-site surface water environment downstream of the US Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation. Environmental Restoration Program  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Previously reported concentrations of radionuclides and of inorganic and organic compounds in the surface water environment off-site of the US Department of Energy/Oak Ridge Reservation (DOE/ORR) suggest the presence of a large number of substances of possible concern to the protection of human health and the ecosystem. Screening of these data, as part of the initial scoping phase of the Clinch River Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation, is necessary to develop a field sampling plan for the acquisition of additional data through the identification of potential contaminants of concern for further evaluation and investigation. The results of this report are based on human health risk end points. For the purposes of screening, conservative and nonconservative estimates of potential maximum exposures were used to identify, respectively, definitely low- and definitely high-priority pollutants. Because of relatively high concentrations of contaminants in sediment, the presence of industrial and agricultural wastes not related to DOE/ORR operations, and the use of a lifetime risk for carcinogens of 10{sup {minus}6} as a lower screening criterion, no surface water reach considered in this study was identified as low priority. In contrast to this result, three contaminants, arsenic in water and thallium in fish of McCoy Branch and {sup 137}Cs in the sediment of the White Oak Creek embayment downstream from White Oak Lake, were tentatively identified as definitely high-priority substances. These locations are within the boundaries of ORR. Nonconservative estimates of exposure identified arsenic, antimony, thallium, uranium, polychlorinated biphenyls 1254 and 1260, chlordane, {sup 60}Co, and {sup 234}Pa as potentially high-priority contaminants in at least one or more locations. These are the contaminants that should receive the most scrutiny in future investigations.

Hoffman, F.O.; Blaylock, B.G.; Frank, M.L.; Etnier, E.L.; Talmage, S.S. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States); Hook, L.A. [Science Applications International Corp., Oak Ridge, TN (United States)

1991-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

77

Preliminary screening of contaminants in the off-site surface water environment downstream of the US Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Previously reported concentrations of radionuclides and of inorganic and organic compounds in the surface water environment off-site of the US Department of Energy/Oak Ridge Reservation (DOE/ORR) suggest the presence of a large number of substances of possible concern to the protection of human health and the ecosystem. Screening of these data, as part of the initial scoping phase of the Clinch River Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation, is necessary to develop a field sampling plan for the acquisition of additional data through the identification of potential contaminants of concern for further evaluation and investigation. The results of this report are based on human health risk end points. For the purposes of screening, conservative and nonconservative estimates of potential maximum exposures were used to identify, respectively, definitely low- and definitely high-priority pollutants. Because of relatively high concentrations of contaminants in sediment, the presence of industrial and agricultural wastes not related to DOE/ORR operations, and the use of a lifetime risk for carcinogens of 10{sup {minus}6} as a lower screening criterion, no surface water reach considered in this study was identified as low priority. In contrast to this result, three contaminants, arsenic in water and thallium in fish of McCoy Branch and {sup 137}Cs in the sediment of the White Oak Creek embayment downstream from White Oak Lake, were tentatively identified as definitely high-priority substances. These locations are within the boundaries of ORR. Nonconservative estimates of exposure identified arsenic, antimony, thallium, uranium, polychlorinated biphenyls 1254 and 1260, chlordane, {sup 60}Co, and {sup 234}Pa as potentially high-priority contaminants in at least one or more locations. These are the contaminants that should receive the most scrutiny in future investigations.

Hoffman, F.O.; Blaylock, B.G.; Frank, M.L.; Etnier, E.L.; Talmage, S.S. (Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States)); Hook, L.A. (Science Applications International Corp., Oak Ridge, TN (United States))

1991-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

78

EIS-0023-FEIS-Tables-1979.pdf  

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

TABLE TABLE 1-1 Quantifiable Environmental Impacts and Cost .4 Ztemti.e 1 Cont*nued Tmk Pam @eRltti Occupational Radiation Exposures Based on SRP Experience, .an-re@ 360 OffSite Pop.latio" Dose risk, mm-red 1,400 Offsite Population DOS. Risk, man-remc 24,000 Offsite Population Dose Risk, .an-re& 2,300 Non-nuclear Accidental Fatalities frm Construction and operations 17.1 BudgetaryCost, mil lions of 1980 dO1lar,e 510 3,800 2>700 2,400 650 220 340 650 340 340 6.5 6.6 6.2 3,600 3,750 3,610 a. Campaign totals for .11 workers b. Cmseq.mces times probabilities, sumed over all events and integrated f.. 300 years. . . Assming tanks are abandoned after 100 years, according to proposed EPA criterion. d. Integrated for 10,000 year,. .. Includes capital and operating cost* TABLE 1.2 Sumary of DiFficu lt-to-Q.antifyFactors Relative DeEree of Action ... q.ir.d by F.c.re Generations

79

Conversion Tables  

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

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - Conversion Tables Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - Conversion Tables Contents taken from Glossary: Carbon Dioxide and Climate, 1990. ORNL/CDIAC-39, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Third Edition. Edited by: Fred O'Hara Jr. 1 - International System of Units (SI) Prefixes 2 - Useful Quantities in CO2 3 - Common Conversion Factors 4 - Common Energy Unit Conversion Factors 5 - Geologic Time Scales 6 - Factors and Units for Calculating Annual CO2 Emissions Using Global Fuel Production Data Table 1. International System of Units (SI) Prefixes Prefix SI Symbol Multiplication Factor exa E 1018 peta P 1015 tera T 1012 giga G 109 mega M 106 kilo k 103 hecto h 102 deka da 10 deci d 10-1 centi c 10-2

80

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for PDF format Excel logo Spreadsheets are provided in excel 1 to117 - Complete set of Supplemental Tables PDF Energy Consumption by Sector (Census Division) Table 1. New England XLS PDF Table 2. Middle Atlantic XLS PDF Table 3. East North Central XLS PDF Table 4. West North Central XLS PDF Table 5. South Atlantic XLS PDF Table 6. East South Central XLS PDF Table 7. West South Central XLS PDF Table 8. Mountain XLS PDF Table 9. Pacific XLS PDF Table 10. Total United States XLS PDF Energy Prices by Sector (Census Division) Table 11. New England XLS PDF Table 12. Middle Atlantic XLS PDF Table 13. East North Central XLS PDF Table 14. West North Central XLS PDF Table 15. South Atlantic XLS PDF Table 16. East South Central

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


81

Iodine-131 Releases from Radioactive Lanthanum Processing at the X-10 Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1944-1956)- An Assessment of Quantities released, Off-Site Radiation Doses, and Potential Excess Risks of Thyroid Cancer- APPENDICES Appendices-Volume 1A  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report consists of all the appendices for the report described below: In the early 1990s, concern about the Oak Ridge Reservation's past releases of contaminants to the environment prompted Tennessee's public health officials to pursue an in-depth study of potential off-site health effects at Oak Ridge. This study, the Oak Ridge dose reconstruction, was supported by an agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the State of Tennessee, and was overseen by a 12-member panel appointed by Tennessee's Commissioner of Health. One of the major contaminants studied in the dose reconstruction was radioactive iodine, which was released to the air by X-10 (now called Oak Ridge National Laboratory) as it processed spent nuclear reactor fuel from 1944 through 1956. The process recovered radioactive lanthanum for use in weapons development. Iodine concentrates in the thyroid gland so health concerns include various diseases of the thyroid, such as thyroid cancer. The large report, ''Iodine-131 Releases from Radioactive Lanthanum Processing at the X-10 Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1944-1956) - An Assessment of Quantities Released, Off-site Radiation Doses, and Potential Excess Risks of Thyroid Cancer,'' is in two volumes. Volume 1 is the main body of the report, and Volume 1A, which has the same title, consists of 22 supporting appendices. Together, these reports serve the following purposes: (1) describe the methodologies used to estimate the amount of iodine-131 (I-131) released; (2) evaluate I-131's pathway from air to vegetation to food to humans; (3) estimate doses received by human thyroids; (4) estimate excess risk of acquiring a thyroid cancer during ones lifetime; and (5) provide equations, examples of historical documents used, and tables of calculated values as appendices. Results indicate that females born in 1952 who consumed milk from a goat pastured a few miles east of X-10 received the highest doses from I-131 and would have had the highest risks of contracting thyroid cancer. Doses from cow's milk are considerably less. Detailed dose and risk estimates, and associated uncertainties, for other contaminants studied in the Oak Ridge dose reconstruction are presented in several other technical reports. One way to easily locate them in OSTI's Information Bridge is by searching the ''report number field'' for the number DOE/OR/21981*. Be sure to place the asterisk after the base number so your search can list the complete series of reports related to Oak Ridge Dose Reconstruction.

Apostoaei, A.I.; Burns, R.E.; Hoffman, F.O.; Ijaz, T.; Lewis, C.J.; Nair, S.K.; Widner, T.E.

1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

82

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................................II  

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

i i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................................II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................... 4 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 6 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA) .................... 6

83

Description of 2003 CBECS Detailed Tables and Categories of Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

floorspace heated, cooled, and lit, and energy-using equipment types (heating, cooling, water heating, lighting, and refrigeration). Tables C1-C12 and C1A-C12A contain energy usage...

84

1992 CBECS Detailed Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Detailed Tables Detailed Tables To download all 1992 detailed tables: Download Acrobat Reader for viewing PDF files. Yellow Arrow Buildings Characteristics Tables (PDF format) (70 tables, 230 pages, file size 1.39 MB) Yellow Arrow Energy Consumption and Expenditures Tables (PDF format) (47 tables, 208 pages, file size 1.28 MB) Yellow Arrow Energy End-Use Tables (PDF format) (6 tables, 6 pages, file size 31.7 KB) Detailed tables for other years: Yellow Arrow 1999 CBECS Yellow Arrow 1995 CBECS Background information on detailed tables: Yellow Arrow Description of Detailed Tables and Categories of Data Yellow Arrow Statistical Significance of Data 1992 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) Detailed Tables Data from the 1992 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) are presented in three groups of detailed tables:

85

Finding of no significant impact shipment of stabilized mixed waste from the K-25 Site to an off-site commercial disposal facility, Oak Ridge K-25 Site, Oak Ridge, Tennessee  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the shipment of stabilized mixed waste, removed from K-1407-B and -C ponds, to an off-site commercial disposal facility (Envirocare) for permanent land disposal. Based on the analysis in the EA, DOE has determined that the proposed action is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required, and DOE is issuing this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

NONE

1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

86

Table 25  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

89 89 Table 25 Created on: 1/3/2014 3:10:33 PM Table 25. Natural gas home customer-weighted heating degree days, New England Middle Atlantic East North Central West North Central South Atlantic Month/Year/Type of data CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT NJ, NY, PA IL, IN, MI, OH, WI IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD DE, FL, GA, MD, DC, NC, SC, VA, WV November Normal 702 665 758 841 442 2012 751 738 772 748 527 2013 756 730 823 868 511 % Diff (normal to 2013) 7.7 9.8 8.6 3.2 15.6 % Diff (2012 to 2013) 0.7 -1.1 6.6 16.0 -3.0 November to November Normal 702 665 758 841 442 2012 751 738 772 748 527 2013 756 730 823 868 511 % Diff (normal to 2013) 7.7 9.8 8.6 3.2 15.6 % Diff (2012 to 2013) 0.7 -1.1 6.6 16.0 -3.0

87

chapter 5. Detailed Tables  

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

5. Detailed Tables 5. Detailed Tables Chapter 5. Detailed Tables The following tables present detailed characteristics of vehicles in the residential sector. Data are from the 1994 Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey. Table Organization The "Detailed Tables" section consists of three types of tables: (1) Tables of totals such as number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) or gallons consumed; (2) tables of per household statistics such as VMT per household; and (3) tables of per-vehicle statistics, such as vehicle fuel consumption per vehicle. The tables have been grouped together by specific topics such as model-year data or family-income data to facilitate finding related information. The Quick-Reference Guide to the detailed tables indicates major topics of each table.

88

Notices TABLE  

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

7 Federal Register 7 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Notices TABLE 2-NET BURDEN CHANGE-Continued 2011-2012 2012-2013 Change % Change Burden disposition Total Applicants .................................... 23,611,500 24,705,864 +1,094,364 +4.63 Net decrease in burden. The increase in applicants is offset by the results of the Department's simplification changes. This has created an over- all decrease in burden of 8.94% or 2,881,475 hours. Total Applicant Burden ......................... 32,239,328 29,357,853 ¥2,881,475 ¥8.94 Total Annual Responses ....................... 32,239,328 46,447,024 +14,207,696 +44.07 Cost for All Applicants .......................... $159,370.20 $234,804.24 $75,434.04 +47.33 The Department is proud that efforts to simplify the FAFSA submission

89

Table 4  

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

4. Mean Annual Electricity Expenditures for Lighting, by Number of 4. Mean Annual Electricity Expenditures for Lighting, by Number of Household Members by Number of Rooms, 1993 (Dollars) Number of Rooms Number of Household Members All Households One to Three Four Five Six Seven Eight or More RSE Column Factors: 0.5 1.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 RSE Row Factors All Households................................... 83 49 63 76 87 104 124 2.34 One..................................................... 55 44 51 54 69 78 87 5.33 Two..................................................... 80 56 63 77 82 96 107 3.38 Three.................................................. 92 60 73 82 95 97 131 4.75 Four.................................................... 106 64 78 93 96 124 134 4.53 Five or More....................................... 112 70 83 98 99 117 150 5.89 Notes: -- To obtain the RSE percentage for any table cell, multiply the

90

1995 Detailed Tables  

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

Households, Buildings & Industry > Commercial Buildings Energy Households, Buildings & Industry > Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey > Detailed Tables 1995 Detailed Tables Data from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) are presented in three groups of detailed tables: Buildings Characteristics Tables, number of buildings and amount of floorspace for major building characteristics. Energy Consumption and Expenditures Tables, energy consumption and expenditures for major energy sources. Energy End-Use Data, total, electricity and natural gas consumption and energy intensities for nine specific end-uses. Summary Table—All Principal Buildings Activities (HTML Format) Background information on detailed tables: Description of Detailed Tables and Categories of Data Statistical Significance of Data

91

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for PDF format. Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for PDF format. MS Excel Viewer Spreadsheets are provided in excel Errata - August 25, 2004 1 to117 - Complete set of of Supplemental Tables PDF Table 1. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (New England) XLS PDF Table 2. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Middle Atlantic) XLS PDF Table 3. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East North Central) XLS PDF Table 4. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West North Central) XLS PDF Table 5. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (South Atlantic) XLS PDF Table 6. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East South Central) XLS PDF Table 7. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West South Central) XLS PDF Table 8. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Mountain)

92

1999 CBECS Detailed Tables  

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

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) > Detailed Tables Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) > Detailed Tables 1999 CBECS Detailed Tables Building Characteristics | Consumption & Expenditures Data from the 1999 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) are presented in the Building Characteristics tables, which include number of buildings and total floorspace for various Building Characteristics, and Consumption and Expenditures tables, which include energy usage figures for major energy sources. A table of Relative Standard Errors (RSEs) is included as a worksheet tab in each Excel tables. Complete sets of RSE tables are also available in .pdf format. (What is an RSE?) Preliminary End-Use Consumption Estimates for 1999 | Description of 1999 Detailed Tables and Categories of Data

93

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

December 22, 2000 (Next Release: December, 2001) Related Links Annual Energy Outlook 2001 Assumptions to the AEO2001 NEMS Conference Contacts Forecast Homepage EIA Homepage AEO Supplement Reference Case Forecast (1999-2020) (HTML) Table 1. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (New England) Table 2. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Middle Atlantic) Table 3. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East North Central) Table 4. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West North Central) Table 5. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (South Atlantic) Table 6. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East South Central) Table 7. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West South Central) Table 8. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Mountain)

94

FY 2005 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) Table of Contents Summary...................................................................................................... 1 Mandatory Funding....................................................................................... 3 Energy Supply.............................................................................................. 4 Non-Defense site acceleration completion................................................... 6 Uranium enrichment D&D fund.................................................................... 6 Non-Defense environmental services.......................................................... 6 Science.........................................................................................................

95

"RSE Table C2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C2.1;"  

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

C2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C2.1;" C2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C2.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," ","Any Combustible" "NAICS"," ","Energy","Residual","Distillate",,"LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Source(b)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(c)","Natural Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"Food",4,0,3,0,1,0,2,6

96

"RSE Table C3.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C3.1;"  

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

C3.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C3.1;" C3.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C3.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," ","Any" "NAICS"," ","Energy","Net","Residual","Distillate",,"LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Source(b)","Electricity(c)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(d)","Natural Gas(e)","NGL(f)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(g)" ,,"Total United States"

97

"RSE Table C4.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C4.1;"  

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

C4.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C4.1;" C4.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C4.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," ","Any" "NAICS"," ","Energy",,"Residual","Distillate",,"LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Source(b)","Electricity(c)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(d)","Natural Gas(e)","NGL(f)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(g)" ,,"Total United States" ,

98

Off site demonstrations for MWLID technologies  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Open demonstrations of technologies developed by the Office of Technology Development`s (QTD`s) Mixed Waste Landfill Integrated Demonstration (MWLID) should facilitate regulatory acceptance and speed the transfer and commercialization of these technologies. The purpose of the present project is to identify the environmental restoration needs of hazardous waste and/or mixed waste landfill owners within a 25-mile radius of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). Most municipal landfills that operated prior to the mid-1980s accepted household/commercial hazardous waste and medical waste that included low-level radioactive waste. The locations of hazardous and/or mixed waste landfills within the State of New Mexico were. identified using federal, state, municipal and Native American tribal environmental records. The records reviewed included the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Program CERCLIS Event/Site listing (which includes tribal records), the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), Solid Waste Bureau mixed waste landfill database, and the City of Albuquerque Environmental Health Department landfill database. Tribal envirorunental records are controlled by each tribal government, so each tribal environmental officer and governor was contacted to obtain release of specific site data beyond what is available in the CERCLIS listings.

Williams, C. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Gruebel, R. [Tech Reps, Inc., Albuquerque, NM (United States)

1995-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

99

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (AEO2002) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1999 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2002, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2002 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seven tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2002 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 2000-2002 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current

100

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Homepage Homepage Supplement Tables to the AEO2001 The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2001 (AEO2001) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1999 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2001, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2001 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-five tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2001 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 1999 and 2000 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


101

A comparison of RETRAN-02 and TRAC-PF1 simulations of a loss of off-site power cooldown to residual heat removal entry conditions at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

As a part of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's unresolved safety issue A-45 decay heat removal program, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) performed a TRAC-PF1 simulation of the Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 pressurized water reactor in a cooldown to residual heat removal (RHR) entry conditions after a loss of off-site power (LOSP). A detailed four-loop TRAC model developed for the A-49 pressurized thermal shock program was used. The LANL results indicated an inability to both cool down and depressurize the primary system sufficiently to meet RHR entry conditions using only the atmospheric dump valves and auxiliary pressurizer spray. A RETRAN-02/MOD3 analysis was performed for the same transient, using assumptions consistent with those in the LANL analysis. A fast-running one loop RETRAN model was selected because of the inherent symmetry of the transient. The RETRAN results compared well with sensitivity analyses indicating that the pressurizer model dominates the transient signatures. A best estimate RETRAN analysis of the cooldown was performed using a more accurate set of assumptions to better understand actual plant operational responses. These results indicate that RHR entry could be achieved after an LOSP using only existing plant equipment and procedures.

Cook, T.L.; Mirsky, S.M.

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

102

The Off-Site Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs: Assessing Potential Environmental Liabilities through an Examination of Proposed Nuclear Projects,High Explosive Experiments, and High Explosive Construction Activities Volume 3 of 3  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document presents the results of nearly six years (2002-2008) of historical research and field studies concerned with evaluating potential environmental liabilities associated with U.S. Atomic Energy Commission projects from the Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs. The Plowshare Program's primary purpose was to develop peaceful uses for nuclear explosives. The Vela Uniform Program focused on improving the capability of detecting, monitoring and identifying underground nuclear detonations. As a result of the Project Chariot site restoration efforts in the early 1990s, there were concerns that there might be other project locations with potential environmental liabilities. The Desert Research Institute conducted archival research to identify projects, an analysis of project field activities, and completed field studies at locations where substantial fieldwork had been undertaken for the projects. Although the Plowshare and Vela Uniform nuclear projects are well known, the projects that are included in this research are relatively unknown. They are proposed nuclear projects that were not executed, proposed and executed high explosive experiments, and proposed and executed high explosive construction activities off the Nevada Test Site. The research identified 170 Plowshare and Vela Uniform off-site projects and many of these had little or no field activity associated with them. However, there were 27 projects that merited further investigation and field studies were conducted at 15 locations.

Beck Colleen M.,Edwards Susan R.,King Maureen L.

2011-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

103

The Off-Site Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs: Assessing Potential Environmental Liabilities through an Examination of Proposed Nuclear Projects,High Explosive Experiments, and High Explosive Construction Activities Volume 1 of 3  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document presents the results of nearly six years (2002-2008) of historical research and field studies concerned with evaluating potential environmental liabilities associated with U.S. Atomic Energy Commission projects from the Plowshare and Vela Uniform Programs. The Plowshare Program's primary purpose was to develop peaceful uses for nuclear explosives. The Vela Uniform Program focused on improving the capability of detecting, monitoring and identifying underground nuclear detonations. As a result of the Project Chariot site restoration efforts in the early 1990s, there were concerns that there might be other project locations with potential environmental liabilities. The Desert Research Institute conducted archival research to identify projects, an analysis of project field activities, and completed field studies at locations where substantial fieldwork had been undertaken for the projects. Although the Plowshare and Vela Uniform nuclear projects are well known, the projects that are included in this research are relatively unknown. They are proposed nuclear projects that were not executed, proposed and executed high explosive experiments, and proposed and executed high explosive construction activities off the Nevada Test Site. The research identified 170 Plowshare and Vela Uniform off-site projects and many of these had little or no field activity associated with them. However, there were 27 projects that merited further investigation and field studies were conducted at 15 locations.

Beck Colleen M,Edwards Susan R.,King Maureen L.

2011-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

104

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (AEO2000) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1998 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2000, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2000 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-six tables are presented. AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (AEO2000) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1998 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2000, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2000 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-six tables are presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO200 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 1998, and 2000 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, Fourth Quarter 1999 or Short Term Energy Outlook, First Quarter 2000, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

105

FY 2005 Laboratory Table  

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

Congressional Budget Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 Laboratory Tables Preliminary Department of Energy Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Preliminary Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropria ted as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress.

106

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 EIA Glossary Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 Release date: February 2005 Next release date: February 2006 The AEO Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 2003 to 2025. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2005, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2005 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seventeen tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2005 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 2003-2005 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

107

Louisiana Block Grant Tables | Department of Energy  

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

Louisiana Block Grant Tables Louisiana Block Grant Tables This table details funding for state, city, and county governments in the state of Louisiana. Louisiana Block Grant Tables...

108

Mississippi Block Grant Tables | Department of Energy  

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

Mississippi Block Grant Tables Mississippi Block Grant Tables A table describing where state funding is being distributed Mississippi Block Grant Tables More Documents &...

109

2003 CBECS RSE Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003rsetables_files/plainlink.css" cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003rsetables_files/plainlink.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet> Home > Households, Buildings & Industry > Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) > 2003 Detailed Tables > RSE Tables 2003 CBECS Relative Standard Error (RSE) Tables Released: Dec 2006 Next CBECS will be conducted in 2007 Standard error is a measure of the reliability or precision of the survey statistic. The value for the standard error can be used to construct confidence intervals and to perform hypothesis tests by standard statistical methods. Relative Standard Error (RSE) is defined as the standard error (square root of the variance) of a survey estimate, divided by the survey estimate and multiplied by 100. (More information on RSEs)

110

Microsoft Word - o151 1c  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Energy Energy ORDER Washington, D.C. DOE O 151.1C Approved: 11-2-05 SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1. OBJECTIVES. a. To establish policy and to assign and describe roles and responsibilities for the Department of Energy (DOE) Emergency Management System. The Emergency Management System provides the framework for development, coordination, control, and direction of all emergency planning, preparedness, readiness assurance, response, and recovery actions. The Emergency Management System applies to DOE and to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). b. To establish requirements for comprehensive planning, preparedness, response, and recovery activities of emergency management programs or for organizations requiring DOE/NNSA assistance.

111

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Buildings Use Tables Buildings Use Tables (24 pages, 129 kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 12. Employment Size Category, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 13. Employment Size Category, Floorspace, 1995 Table 14. Weekly Operating Hours, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 15. Weekly Operating Hours, Floorspace, 1995 Table 16. Occupancy of Nongovernment-Owned and Government-Owned Buildings, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 17. Occupancy of Nongovernment-Owned and Government-Owned Buildings, Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the

112

FY 2009 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Preliminary February 2008 Office of Chief Financial Officer Department of Energy FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request State Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper State Index Page Number FY 2009 Congressional Budget 1/30/2008 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 9:01:45AM Page 1 of 2 FY 2007 Appropriation FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009 Request State Table 1 1 $27,588

113

FY 2005 State Table  

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

Office of Management, Budget Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 State Tables State Tables Preliminary Preliminary Department of Energy Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 State Tables State Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Preliminary Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. State Index Page Number

114

FY 2010 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Preliminary May 2009 Office of Chief Financial Officer FY 2010 Congressional Budget Request State Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper State Index Page Number FY 2010 Congressional Budget 5/4/2009 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 2:13:22PM Page 1 of 2 FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009 Appropriation FY 2010 Request State Table 1 1 $46,946 $48,781 $38,844 Alabama 2 $6,569

115

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook 1999 Annual Energy Outlook 1999 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Assumptions to the AEO99 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) NEMS Conference bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Contacts bullet1.gif (843 bytes) To Forecasting Home Page bullet1.gif (843 bytes) EIA Homepage supplemental.gif (7420 bytes) (Errata as of 9/13/99) The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 1999 (AEO99) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1997 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO99, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO99 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-five tables are presented.

116

FY 2006 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2005 State Tables Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. State Index Page Number FY 2006 Congressional Budget 1/27/2005 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 3:32:58PM Page 1 of 2 FY 2004 Comp/Approp FY 2005 Comp/Approp FY 2006 Request State Table

117

FY 2010 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Preliminary May 2009 Office of Chief Financial Officer FY 2010 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2010 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 2:08:56PM Department Of Energy 5/4/2009 Page Number FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009 Appropriation FY 2010 Request Laboratory Table 1 1 $1,200

118

Table of Contents  

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

E N N E E R R A A L L Semiannual Report toCongress DOEIG-0065 April 1 - September 30, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS From the Desk of the Inspector General ......

119

FY 2008 State Table  

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

State Table State Table Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request February 2007 Office of Chief Financial Officer State Table Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. State Index Page Number FY 2008 Congressional Budget 2/1/2007 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 6:53:08AM Page 1 of 2 FY 2006 Appropriation FY 2007 Request FY 2008 Request State Table 1 1 $28,332 $30,341

120

WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM NOTICE 09-1C | Department of Energy  

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

09-1C WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM NOTICE 09-1C GUIDANCE FOR GRANT AMENDMENTS FOR THE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY RESOURCES FOR CONSUMERS FUNDING wpn10-19.pdf More Documents & Publications...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


121

"RSE Table C9.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C9.1;"  

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

C9.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C9.1;" C9.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C9.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," " " "," ",,,"General","Amount of ","Establishment-Paid","Activity Cost" "NAICS"," "," " "Code(a)","Energy-Management Activity","No Participation","Participation(b)","All","Some","None","Don't Know" ,,"Total United States" " 311 - 339","ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES" ,"Participation in One or More of the Following Types of Activities",1,2,0,0,0,0 ," Energy Audits",1,3,5,6,5,7 ," Electricity Load Control",1,3,4,7,6,7

122

FY 2011 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0054 March 2010 Office of Chief Financial Officer State Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0054 State Index Page Number FY 2011 Congressional Budget 1/29/2010 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 6:34:40AM Page 1 of 2 FY 2009 Appropriation

123

FY 2007 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory tables Laboratory tables preliminary Department of Energy FY 2007 Congressional Budget Request February 2006 Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Office of Chief Financial Officer Laboratory tables preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2007 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 12:10:40PM Department Of Energy 1/31/2006 Page Number FY 2005 Appropriation FY 2006 Appropriation FY 2007

124

FY 2011 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0055 March 2010 Office of Chief Financial Officer Laboratory Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0055 Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2011 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 6:24:57AM Department Of Energy 1/29/2010 Page

125

FY 2008 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Table Laboratory Table Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request February 2007 Office of Chief Financial Officer Laboratory Table Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2008 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 6:51:02AM Department Of Energy 2/1/2007 Page Number FY 2006 Appropriation FY 2007 Request FY 2008 Request

126

FY 2006 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2005 Laboratory Tables Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2006 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 3:43:16PM Department Of Energy 1/27/2005 Page Number FY 2004 Comp/Approp FY 2005 Comp/Approp

127

Fy 2009 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Preliminary February 2008 Office of Chief Financial Officer Department of Energy FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2009 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 8:59:25AM Department Of Energy 1/30/2008 Page Number FY 2007 Appropriation FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009

128

FY 2013 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Current Enacted Congressional Approp. Approp. * Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy........................................ 1,771,721 1,809,638 2,337,000 +527,362 +29.1% Electricity delivery and energy reliability......................................... 138,170 139,103 143,015 +3,912 +2.8% Nuclear energy................................................................................ 717,817 765,391 770,445 +5,054 +0.7% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology.................................................................. -16,500 -- --

129

FY 2009 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Current Current Congressional Op. Plan Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy.......................... -- 1,722,407 1,255,393 -467,014 -27.1% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................... -- 138,556 134,000 -4,556 -3.3% Nuclear energy................................................................. -- 961,665 853,644 -108,021 -11.2% Legacy management........................................................ -- 33,872 -- -33,872 -100.0% Energy supply and conservation Operation and maintenance..........................................

130

Table of Contents Page i Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Table of Contents Page i Table of Contents 4. Building HVAC Requirements ....................................................................................1 4.1.2 What's New for the 2013 Standards.............................................................................................3 4.1.4 California Appliance Standards and Equipment Certification

131

Cost Recovery Charge (CRC) Calculation Tables  

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

Cost Recovery Charge (CRC) Calculation Table Updated: October 6, 2014 FY 2016 September 2014 CRC Calculation Table (pdf) Final FY 2015 CRC Letter & Table (pdf) Note: The Cost...

132

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

/2011 /2011 Decades of Discovery Decades of Discovery Page 2 6/1/2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 6 2 BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES .................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Adenosine Triphosphate: The Energy Currency of Life .............................................. 7 2.2 Making Better Catalysts .............................................................................................. 8 2.3 Understanding Chemical Reactions............................................................................ 9 2.4 New Types of Superconductors ................................................................................ 10

133

FY 2006 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Comparable Comparable Request to FY 2006 vs. FY 2005 Approp Approp Congress Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply Operation and maintenance................................................. 787,941 909,903 862,499 -47,404 -5.2% Construction......................................................................... 6,956 22,416 40,175 17,759 +79.2% Total, Energy supply................................................................ 794,897 932,319 902,674 -29,645 -3.2% Non-Defense site acceleration completion............................. 167,272 157,316 172,400 15,084 +9.6%

134

FY 2013 Laboratory Table  

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

8 8 Department of Energy FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables y Preliminary February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer DOE/CF-0078 Department of Energy FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables P li i Preliminary h b d i d i hi d h l l f b d h i f h The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2013 Congressional Budget

135

FY 2010 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Current Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Recovery Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy....................................... 1,704,112 2,178,540 16,800,000 2,318,602 +140,062 +6.4% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................................ 136,170 137,000 4,500,000 208,008 +71,008 +51.8% Nuclear energy.............................................................................. 960,903 792,000 -- 761,274 -30,726 -3.9% Legacy management..................................................................... 33,872 -- -- --

136

FY 2012 State Table  

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

6 6 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request State Tables P li i Preliminary February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer DOE/CF-0066 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request State Tables P li i Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer Printed with soy ink on recycled

137

FY 2012 Statistical Table  

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

2Statistical Table by Appropriation 2Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Current Congressional Annualized Congressional Approp. Request CR Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy....................................... 2,216,392 2,355,473 2,242,500 3,200,053 +983,661 +44.4% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................................ 168,484 185,930 171,982 237,717 +69,233 +41.1% Nuclear energy............................................................................. 774,578 824,052 786,637 754,028 -20,550 -2.7% Fossil energy programs Fossil energy research and development................................... 659,770 586,583 672,383 452,975

138

FY 2007 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply and conservation Operation and maintenance............................................ 1,779,399 1,791,372 1,917,331 +125,959 +7.0% Construction................................................................... 22,416 21,255 6,030 -15,225 -71.6% Total, Energy supply and conservation.............................. 1,801,815 1,812,627 1,923,361 +110,734 +6.1% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology..................................................... -160,000 -20,000 -- +20,000 +100.0% Fossil energy research and development.......................

139

FY 2012 Laboratory Table  

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

5 5 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables y Preliminary February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer DOE/CF-0065 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables P li i Preliminary h b d i d i hi d h l l f b d h i f h The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2012 Congressional Budget

140

FY 2008 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Current Congressional Congressional Approp. Request Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply and conservation Operation and maintenance........................................... 1,781,242 1,917,331 2,187,943 +270,612 +14.1% Construction.................................................................... 31,155 6,030 -- -6,030 -100.0% Total, Energy supply and conservation............................. 1,812,397 1,923,361 2,187,943 +264,582 +13.8% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology.................................................... -20,000 -- -58,000 -58,000 N/A Fossil energy research and development......................

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


141

Table of Contents  

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

COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS OF SMART GRID TECHNOLOGIES October 5, 2010 i Table of Contents I. Introduction and Executive Summary.......................................................... 1 a. Overview of Smart Grid Benefits and Communications Needs................. 2 b. Summary of Recommendations .................................................................... 5 II. Federal Government Smart Grid Initiatives ................................................ 7 a. DOE Request for Information ....................................................................... 7 b. Other Federal Government Smart Grid Initiatives .................................... 9 III. Communications Requirements of Smart Grid Applications .................. 11 a. Advanced Metering Infrastructure ............................................................12

142

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Geographic Location Tables Geographic Location Tables (24 pages, 136kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 3. Census Region, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 4. Census Region and Division, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 5. Census Region and Division, Floorspace, 1995 Table 6. Climate Zone, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 7. Metropolitan Status, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the United States. The 1995 CBECS was the sixth survey in a series begun in 1979. The data were collected from a sample of 6,639 buildings representing 4.6 million commercial buildings

143

2003 CBECS Detailed Tables: Summary  

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

2003 Detailed Tables 2003 Detailed Tables 2003 CBECS Detailed Tables most recent available Released: September 2008 Building Characteristics | Consumption & Expenditures | End-Use Consumption In the 2003 CBECS, the survey procedures for strip shopping centers and enclosed malls ("mall buildings") were changed from those used in previous surveys, and, as a result, mall buildings are now excluded from most of the 2003 CBECS tables. Therefore, some data in the majority of the tables are not directly comparable with previous CBECS tables, all of which included mall buildings. Some numbers in the 2003 tables will be slightly lower than earlier surveys since the 2003 figures do not include mall buildings. See "Change in Data Collection Procedures for Malls" for a more detailed explanation.

144

Oak Ridge Health Studies Phase 1 report, Volume 2: Part A, Dose Reconstruction Feasibility Study. Tasks 1 and 2, A summary of historical activities on the Oak Ridge Reservation with emphasis on information concerning off-site emissions of hazardous materials  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Phase I feasibility study has focused on determining the availability of information for estimating exposures of the public to chemicals and radionuclides released as a result of historical operation of the facilities at the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). The estimation of such past exposures is frequently called dose reconstruction. The initial project tasks, Tasks 1 and 2 were designed to identify and collect information that documents the history of activities at the ORR that resulted in the release of contamination and to characterize the availability of data that could be used to estimate the magnitude of the contaminant releases or public exposures. A history of operations that are likely to have generated off-site releases has been documented as a result of Task 1 activities. The activities required to perform this task involved the extensive review of historical operation records and interviews with present and past employees as well as other knowledgeable individuals. The investigation process is documented in this report. The Task 1 investigations have led to the documentation of an overview of the activities that have taken place at each of the major complexes, including routine operations, waste management practices, special projects, and accidents and incidents. Historical activities that appear to warrant the highest priority in any further investigations were identified based on their likely association with off-site emissions of hazardous materials as indicated by the documentation reviewed or information obtained in interviews.

Bruce, G.M.; Buddenbaum, J.E.; Lamb, J.K.; Widner, T.E.

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

145

Table of Contents  

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

NT0005638 NT0005638 Cruise Report 1-19 July 2009 HYFLUX Sea Truth Cruise Northern Gulf of Mexico Submitted by: Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Dr. Corpus Christi, TX 78412 Principal Authors: Ian R. MacDonald and Thomas Naehr Prepared for: United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory October 30, 2009 Office of Fossil Energy HYFLUX Seatruth Cruise Report -1- Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi Table of Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................. 2 Participating Organizations ................................................................................................. 3 Major Equipment ................................................................................................................ 4

146

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Table 2. Total Energy Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 5. Total Coal Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 6. Total Electricity Sales, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 7. Crude Oil Production, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 8. Natural Gas Production, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 9. Coal Production, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 12. Net Coal Exports, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 13. World Oil Prices, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 14. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 15. Coal Prices to Electric Utilities, Actual vs. Forecasts

147

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Analysis Papers > Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Analysis Papers > Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Download Adobe Acrobat Reader Printer friendly version on our site are provided in Adobe Acrobat Spreadsheets are provided in Excel Actual vs. Forecasts Formats Table 2. Total Energy Consumption Excel, PDF Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption Excel, PDF Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption Excel, PDF Table 5. Total Coal Consumption Excel, PDF Table 6. Total Electricity Sales Excel, PDF Table 7. Crude Oil Production Excel, PDF Table 8. Natural Gas Production Excel, PDF Table 9. Coal Production Excel, PDF Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports Excel, PDF Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports Excel, PDF Table 12. World Oil Prices Excel, PDF Table 13. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices

148

Help:Tables | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Tables Tables Jump to: navigation, search Tables may be authored in wiki pages using either XHTML table elements directly, or using wikicode formatting to define the table. XHTML table elements and their use are well described on various web pages and will not be discussed here. The benefit of wikicode is that the table is constructed of character symbols which tend to make it easier to perceive the table structure in the article editing view compared to XHTML table elements. As a general rule, it is best to avoid using a table unless you need one. Table markup often complicates page editing. Contents 1 Wiki table markup summary 2 Basics 2.1 Table headers 2.2 Caption 3 XHTML attributes 3.1 Attributes on tables 3.2 Attributes on cells 3.3 Attributes on rows 3.4 HTML colspan and rowspan

149

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Conservation Tables Conservation Tables (16 pages, 86 kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 41. Energy Conservation Features, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 42. Building Shell Conservation Features, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 43. Building Shell Conservation Features, Floorspace, 1995 Table 44. Reduction in Equipment Use During Off Hours, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the United States. The 1995 CBECS was the sixth survey in a series begun in 1979. The data were collected from a sample of 6,639 buildings representing 4.6 million commercial buildings

150

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Structure Tables Structure Tables (16 pages, 93 kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 8. Building Size, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 9. Building Size, Floorspace, 1995 Table 10. Year Constructed, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 11. Year Constructed, Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the United States. The 1995 CBECS was the sixth survey in a series begun in 1979. The data were collected from a sample of 6,639 buildings representing 4.6 million commercial buildings and 58.8 billion square feet of commercial floorspace in the U.S. The 1995 data are available for the four Census

151

CARINA Data Table  

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

Cruise Summary Table and Data Cruise Summary Table and Data Users are requested to report any data or metadata errors in the CARINA cruise files to CDIAC. Parameter units in all CARINA data files are in CCHDO exchange format. No Cruise Namea (Alias) Areab Number of Stations Datec Ship Chief Scientist Carbon PI Oxygen Nutrients TCO2d TALK pCO2e pHf CFC Other Measurements Data Files 1 06AQ19920929g (06ANTX_6) (See map) 2 118 9/29-11/30/1992 Polarstern V. Smetacek M. Stoll, J. Rommets, H. De Baar, D. Bakker 62 114h 53 54i U C 0 Choloroa,b Fluorescence, NH4 Data Files (Metadata) 2 06AQ19930806 (06ARKIX_4) (See map) 4 64 8/6-10/5/1993 Polarstern D.K. Fütterer L. Anderson 64 63 63j, bb 0 0 0 59he 3H, 3He, 18O, 14C, 85Kr, Bak Data Files

152

Supplement Tables - Contact  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Supplement Tables to the AEO99 Supplement Tables to the AEO99 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Annual Energy Outlook 1999 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Assumptions to the AEO99 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) NEMS Conference bullet1.gif (843 bytes) To Forecasting Home Page bullet1.gif (843 bytes) EIA Homepage furtherinfo.gif (5474 bytes) The Annual Energy Outlook 1999 (AEO99) was prepared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, under the direction of Mary J. Hutzler (mhutzler@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222). General questions may be addressed to Arthur T. Andersen (aanderse@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-1441), Director of the International, Economic, and Greenhouse Gas Division; Susan H. Holte (sholte@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-4838), Director of the Demand and Integration Division; James M. Kendell (jkendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director of the Oil and Gas Division; Scott Sitzer (ssitzer@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2308), Director of the Coal and Electric Power Division; or Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Modeling Analyst. Detailed questions about the forecasts and related model components may be addressed to the following analysts:

153

Appendix B: Summary Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Analysis of Impacts of a Clean Energy Standard as requested by Chairman Bingaman U.S. Energy Information Administration | Analysis of Impacts of a Clean Energy Standard as requested by Chairman Bingaman Appendix B: Summary Tables Table B1. The BCES and alternative cases compared to the Reference case, 2025 2009 2025 Ref Ref BCES All Clean Partial Credit Revised Baseline Small Utilities Credit Cap 2.1 Credit Cap 3.0 Stnds + Cds Generation (billion kilowatthours) Coal 1,772 2,049 1,431 1,305 1,387 1,180 1,767 1,714 1,571 1,358 Petroleum 41 45 43 44 44 44 45 45 45 43 Natural Gas 931 1,002 1,341 1,342 1,269 1,486 1,164 1,193 1,243 1,314 Nuclear 799 871 859 906 942 889 878 857 843 826 Conventional Hydropower 274 306 322 319 300 321 316 298 312 322 Geothermal 15 25 28 25 31 24 27 22 23 24 Municipal Waste 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Wood and Other Biomass 38 162 303 289 295 301 241 266

154

CBECS 1992 - Consumption & Expenditures, Detailed Tables  

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

Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Figure on Energy Consumption in Commercial Buildings by Energy Source, 1992 Divider Line The 49 tables present detailed energy consumption and expenditure data for buildings in the commercial sector. This section provides assistance in reading the tables by explaining some of the headings for the data categories. It will also explain the use of row and column factors to compute both the confidence levels of the estimates given in the tables and the statistical significance of differences between the data in two or more categories. The section concludes with a "Quick-Reference Guide" to the statistics in the different tables. Categories of Data in the Tables After Table 3.1, which is a summary table, the tables are grouped into the major fuel tables (Tables 3.2 through 3.13) and the specific fuel tables (Tables 3.14 through 3.29 for electricity, Tables 3.30 through 3.40 for natural gas, Tables 3.41 through 3.45 for fuel oil, and Tables 3.46 through 3.47 for district heat). Table 3.48 presents energy management and DSM data as reported by the building respondent. Table 3.49 presents data on participation in electric utility-sponsored DSM programs as reported by both the building respondent and the electricity supplier.

155

DOE Order 420.1B/1C Crosswalk Matrix  

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

20.1B/1C Crosswalk Matrix 20.1B/1C Crosswalk Matrix Page 1 of 90 February 26, 2013 Citation (420.1C) Original Requirement (O 420.1B, Chg 1, dated 4-19-10) Revised Requirement (O 420.1C, 12-04-2012) Comments 1. 1. OBJECTIVES. To establish facility and programmatic safety requirements for Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), for- a. nuclear and explosives safety design criteria, b. fire protection, c. criticality safety, d. natural phenomena hazards (NPH) mitigation, and e. the System Engineer Program. 1. OBJECTIVE. To establish facility and programmatic safety requirements for the Department of Energy(DOE), including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), for: a. Nuclear safety design criteria;

156

Microsoft Word - table_87  

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

5 5 Table 6. Natural gas processed, liquids extracted, and natural gas plant liquids production, by state, 2012 Alabama 87,269 5,309 7,110 Alabama Onshore Alabama 33,921 2,614 3,132 Alabama Offshore Alabama 53,348 2,695 3,978 Alaska 2,788,997 18,339 21,470 Alaska 2,788,997 18,339 21,470 Arkansas 6,872 336 424 Arkansas 6,872 336 424 California 169,203 9,923 12,755 California Onshore California 169,203 9,923 12,755 California Offshore California NA NA NA Federal Offshore California NA NA NA

157

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Summary 1. Technical Progress 3 2. Cost Reporting 5 B. Detailed Reports 1.1 Magnets & Supports 8 1.2 Vacuum System 12 1.3 Power Supplies 14 1.4 RF System 16 1.5 Instrumentation & Controls 17 1.6 Cable Plant 18 1.7 Beam Line Front Ends 19 1.8 Facilities 19 1.9 Installation 20 2.1 Accelerator Physics 21 2 A. SPEAR 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Technical Progress The progress and highlights of each major technical system are summarized below. Additional details are provided in Section B. Magnets - As of the end of this quarter (March 31, 2002), the status of magnet fabrication is as follows: Magnet Type Number Received % of Total Received Dipoles 40 100% Quadrupoles 102 100% Sextupoles 76 100%

158

Reviews, Tables, and Plots  

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

4 Review of Particle Physics 4 Review of Particle Physics Please use this CITATION: S. Eidelman et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004) (bibtex) Standalone figures are now available for these reviews. Categories: * Constants, Units, Atomic and Nuclear Properties * Standard Model and Related Topics * Particle Properties * Hypothetical Particles * Astrophysics and Cosmology * Experimental Methods and Colliders * Mathematical Tools * Kinematics, Cross-Section Formulae, and Plots * Authors, Introductory Text, History plots PostScript help file PDF help file Constants, Units, Atomic and Nuclear Properties Physical constants (Rev.) PS PDF (1 page) Astrophysical constants (Rev.) PS PDF (2 pages) International System of units (SI) PS PDF (2 pages) Periodic table of the elements (Rev.) errata PS PDF (1 page)

159

Table G3  

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

1905-0194 1905-0194 Expiration Date: 07/31/2013 May 28, 2010 Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 14 Table G3. Decision Chart for a Start Year Report for a Large Emitter Intending To Register Reductions Report Characteristics Reporting Requirements Schedule I Schedule II (For Each Subentity) Schedule III Schedule IV Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 3 Sec. 4 Sec. 1 Sec. 2 & Add. A Sec. 3 Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Part A Part B Part C Part D Part E Part A Part B Part C Independent Verification? All A- or B-Rated Methods? Foreign Emissions? Entity-Wide Reductions Only? Entity Statement Aggregated Emissions by Gas (Domestic and Foreign) † Emissions Inventory by Source

160

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

through June 2001 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Summary 1. Technical Progress 3 2. Cost Reporting 4 B. Detailed Reports 1.1 Magnets & Supports 9 1.2 Vacuum System 16 1.3 Power Supplies 21 1.4 RF System 25 1.5 Instrumentation & Controls 26 1.6 Cable Plant 28 1.8 Facilities 28 2.0 Accelerator Physics 29 2.1 ES&H 31 3 A. SPEAR 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Technical Progress Magnet System - The project has received three shipments of magnets from IHEP. A total of 55 dipole, quadrupole and sextupole magnets out of 218 have arrived. All main magnets will arrive by December. The additional mechanical and electrical checks of the magnets at SSRL have been successful. Only minor mechanical problems were found and corrected. The prototype

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


161

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

AC05-00OR22800 AC05-00OR22800 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page # TOC - i SECTION A - SOLICITATION/OFFER AND AWARD ......................................................................... A-i SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS ........................................................ B-i B.1 SERVICES BEING ACQUIRED ....................................................................................B-2 B.2 TRANSITION COST, ESTIMATED COST, MAXIMUM AVAILABLE FEE, AND AVAILABLE FEE (Modification 295, 290, 284, 280, 270, 257, 239, 238, 219, M201, M180, M162, M153, M150, M141, M132, M103, M092, M080, M055, M051, M049, M034, M022, M003, A002) ..........................................................B-2 SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATION/WORK STATEMENT DESCRIPTION OF

162

Table of Contents  

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

U U U . . S S . . D D E E P P A A R R T T M M E E N N T T O O F F E E N N E E R R G G Y Y O O F F F F I I C C E E O O F F I I N N S S P P E E C C T T O O R R G G E E N N E E R R A A L L Semiannual Report toCongress DOE/IG-0065 April 1 - September 30, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS From the Desk of the Inspector General ..................................................... 2 Impacts Key Accomplishments ............................................................................................... 3 Positive Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 3 Reports Investigative Outcomes .............................................................................................. 6 Audits ......................................................................................................................... 8

163

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

October October through December 2001 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Summary 1. Technical Progress 3 2. Cost Reporting 4 B. Detailed Reports 1.1 Magnets & Supports 7 1.2 Vacuum System 9 1.3 Power Supplies 13 1.4 RF System 16 1.5 Instrumentation & Controls 17 1.6 Cable Plant 18 1.9 Installation 19 2.0 Accelerator Physics 20 3 A. SPEAR 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Technical Progress In the magnet area, the production of all major components (dipoles, quadrupoles, and sextupoles) has been completed on schedule. This results from a highly successful collaboration with our colleagues at the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) in Beijing. The production of corrector magnets is still in progress with completion scheduled for May 2002.

164

2003 CBECS Detailed Tables: Summary  

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

Energy Expenditures by Major Fuel c2-pdf c2.xls c2.html Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels c3.pdf c3.xls c3.html Table C4. Expenditures for...

165

2014 Headquarters Facilities Master Security Plan - Table of...  

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

Table of Contents 2014 Headquarters Facilities Master Security Plan - Table of Contents June 2014 2014 Headquarters Facilities Master Security Plan - Table of Contents The Table of...

166

FY 2014 Budget Request Summary Table | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Summary Table FY 2014 Budget Request Summary Table Summary Table by Appropriations Summary Table by Organization More Documents & Publications FY 2014 Budget Request Statistical...

167

ARM - Instrument - s-table  

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

govInstrumentss-table govInstrumentss-table Documentation S-TABLE : Instrument Mentor Monthly Summary (IMMS) reports S-TABLE : Data Quality Assessment (DQA) reports 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 Instrument : Stabilized Platform (S-TABLE) Instrument Categories Ocean Observations For ship-based deployments, some instruments require actively stabilized platforms to compensate for the ship's motion, especially rotations around the long axis of the ship (roll), short axis (pitch), and, for some instruments, vertical axis (yaw). ARM currently employs two types of stabilized platforms: one electrically controlled for lighter instruments that includes yaw control (dubbed RPY for Roll, Pitch, Yaw) and one

168

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Modeling and Analysis Papers> Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Modeling and Analysis Papers> Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Actual vs. Forecasts Available formats Excel (.xls) for printable spreadsheet data (Microsoft Excel required) MS Excel Viewer PDF (Acrobat Reader required Download Acrobat Reader ) Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Table 2. Total Energy Consumption Excel, PDF Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption Excel, PDF Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption Excel, PDF Table 5. Total Coal Consumption Excel, PDF Table 6. Total Electricity Sales Excel, PDF Table 7. Crude Oil Production Excel, PDF Table 8. Natural Gas Production Excel, PDF Table 9. Coal Production Excel, PDF Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports Excel, PDF Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports Excel, PDF

169

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Actual vs. Forecasts Available formats Excel (.xls) for printable spreadsheet data (Microsoft Excel required) PDF (Acrobat Reader required) Table 2. Total Energy Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 5. Total Coal Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 6. Total Electricity Sales HTML, Excel, PDF Table 7. Crude Oil Production HTML, Excel, PDF Table 8. Natural Gas Production HTML, Excel, PDF Table 9. Coal Production HTML, Excel, PDF Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports HTML, Excel, PDF Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports HTML, Excel, PDF Table 12. Net Coal Exports HTML, Excel, PDF Table 13. World Oil Prices HTML, Excel, PDF

170

table14.xls  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 14. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices, Actual vs. Reference Case Projections Table 14. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices, Actual vs. Reference Case Projections (current dollars per thousand cubic feet) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 AEO 1982 4.32 5.47 6.67 7.51 8.04 8.57 AEO 1983 2.93 3.11 3.46 3.93 4.56 5.26 12.74 AEO 1984 2.77 2.90 3.21 3.63 4.13 4.79 9.33 AEO 1985 2.60 2.61 2.66 2.71 2.94 3.35 3.85 4.46 5.10 5.83 6.67 AEO 1986 1.73 1.96 2.29 2.54 2.81 3.15 3.73 4.34 5.06 5.90 6.79 7.70 8.62 9.68 10.80 AEO 1987 1.83 1.95 2.11 2.28 2.49 2.72 3.08 3.51 4.07 7.54 AEO 1989* 1.62 1.70 1.91 2.13 2.58 3.04 3.48 3.93 4.76 5.23 5.80 6.43 6.98 AEO 1990 1.78 1.88 2.93 5.36 AEO 1991 1.77 1.90 2.11 2.30 2.42 2.51 2.60 2.74 2.91 3.29 3.75 4.31 5.07 5.77 6.45 AEO 1992 1.69 1.85 2.03 2.15 2.35 2.51 2.74 3.01 3.40 3.81 4.24 4.74 5.25 5.78 AEO 1993 1.85 1.94 2.09 2.30 2.44 2.60 2.85 3.12 3.47 3.84 4.31 4.81 5.28

171

Code Tables | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

System NMMSS Information, Reports & Forms Code Tables Code Tables U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Materials Management & Safeguards...

172

MECS Fuel Oil Tables  

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

: Actual, Minimum and Maximum Use Values for Fuel Oils and Natural Gas : Actual, Minimum and Maximum Use Values for Fuel Oils and Natural Gas Year Distillate Fuel Oil (TBtu) Actual Minimum Maximum Discretionary Rate 1985 185 148 1224 3.4% 1994 152 125 1020 3.1% Residual Fuel Oil (TBtu) Actual Minimum Maximum Discretionary Rate 1985 505 290 1577 16.7% 1994 441 241 1249 19.8% Natural Gas (TBtu) Actual Minimum Maximum Discretionary Rate 1985 4656 2702 5233 77.2% 1994 6141 4435 6758 73.4% Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, 1985 and 1994 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Surveys. Table 2: Establishments That Actually Switched Between Natural Gas and Residual Fuel Oil Type of Switch Number of Establishments in Population Number That Use Original Fuel Percentage That Use Original Fuel Number That Can Switch to Another Fuel Percentage That Can Switch to Another Fuel Number That Actually Made a Switch Percentage That Actually Made a Switch

173

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

Turbines The Gas Turbine Handbook The Gas Turbine Handbook TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Updated Author Contact Information Introduction - Rich Dennis, Turbines Technology Manager 1.1 Simple and Combined Cycles - Claire Soares 1.1-1 Introduction 1.1-2 Applications 1.1-3 Applications versatility 1.1-4 The History of the Gas Turbine 1.1-5 Gas Turbine, Major Components, Modules, and systems 1.1-6 Design development with Gas Turbines 1.1-7 Gas Turbine Performance 1.1-8 Combined Cycles 1.1-9 Notes 1.2 Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) - Massod Ramezan and Gary Stiegel 1.2-1 Introduction 1.2-2 The Gasification Process 1.2-3 IGCC Systems 1.2-4 Gasifier Improvements 1.2-5 Gas Separation Improvements 1.2-6 Conclusions 1.2-7 Notes 1.2.1 Different Types of Gasifiers and Their Integration with Gas Turbines - Jeffrey Phillips

174

Frequently Asked Questions - DOE O 420.1C  

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

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding DOE Order 420.1C, Facility Safety, and its supporting directives, DOE-STD-1020-2012, Natural Phenomena Hazards Analysis and Design Criteria for DOE Facilities, and DOE-STD-1066-2012, Fire Protection Q-1: For existing facilities how do I determine the list of applicable design codes and standards? A: For existing facilities the code of record (i.e. those codes and standards in effect at the time that the facility was designed) is the list of applicable design codes and standards. In the case of major modifications to existing facilities, the design codes and standards of O 420.1C apply. Q-2: I work at an existing facility. What changes in DOE O 420.1C do I have to be concerned about?

175

EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2009 - chapter Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Chapter Tables Chapter Tables Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030 Chapter Tables Table 1. Estimated fuel economy for light-duty vehicles, based on proposed CAFE standards, 2010-2015 Table 2. State appliance efficiency standards and potential future actions Table 3. State renewable portfolio standards Table 4. Key analyses from "issues in Focus" in recent AEOs Table 5. Liquid fuels production in three cases, 2007 and 2030 Table 6. Assumptions used in comparing conventional and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles Table 7. Conventional vehicle and plug-in hybrid system component costs for mid-size vehicles at volume production Table 8. Technically recoverable resources of crude oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, as of January 1, 2007

176

MECS 1991 Publications and Tables  

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

Publication and Tables Publication and Tables Publication and Tables Figure showing the Largest Energy Consumers in the Manufacturing Sector You have the option of downloading the entire report or selected sections of the report. Full Report - Manufacturing Consumption of Energy 1991 (file size 17.2 MB) pages:566 Selected Sections Main Text (file size 380,153 bytes) pages: 33, includes the following: Contacts Contents Executive Summary Introduction Energy Consumption in the Manufacturing Sector: An Overview Energy Consumption in the Manufacturing Sector, 1991 Manufacturing Capability To Switch Fuels Appendices Appendix A. Detailed Tables Appendix B. Survey Design, Implementation, and Estimates (file size 141,211 bytes) pages: 22. Appendix C. Quality of the Data (file size 135,511 bytes) pages: 8.

177

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

............................................... 12 Water-Source Heat Pump Performance ............................ 18 Air-Source Heat Pump OF PERFORMANCE OF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMP .............................. ................. 23 FIGURE 2. NODAL. MONTHLY HEAT GAIN/LOSS FACTORS ........................... 5 TABLE 2. BASE TEMPERATURES

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

178

EIA - Appendix A - Reference Case Projection Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Tables (2005-2035) Tables (2005-2035) International Energy Outlook 2010 Reference Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Appendix A. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table A1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table A2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

179

EIA - Supplement Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

10 10 Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Table 1. New England Excel Gif Table 2. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 3. East North Central Excel Gif Table 4. West North Central Excel Gif Table 5. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 6. East South Central Excel Gif Table 7. West South Central Excel Gif Table 8. Mountain Excel Gif Table 9. Pacific Excel Gif Table 10. Total United States Excel Gif Energy Prices by Sector and Source Table 11. New England Excel Gif Table 12. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 13. East North Central Excel Gif Table 14. West North Central Excel Gif Table 15. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 16. East South Central Excel Gif Table 17. West South Central Excel Gif Table 18. Mountain Excel Gif Table 19. Pacific

180

EIA - Supplement Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

09 09 Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Table 1. New England Excel Gif Table 2. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 3. East North Central Excel Gif Table 4. West North Central Excel Gif Table 5. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 6. East South Central Excel Gif Table 7. West South Central Excel Gif Table 8. Mountain Excel Gif Table 9. Pacific Excel Gif Table 10. Total United States Excel Gif Energy Prices by Sector and Source Table 11. New England Excel Gif Table 12. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 13. East North Central Excel Gif Table 14. West North Central Excel Gif Table 15. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 16. East South Central Excel Gif Table 17. West South Central Excel Gif Table 18. Mountain Excel Gif Table 19. Pacific

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


181

OFF-SITE RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY PROGRAM FOR PROJECT RULISON FLARING...  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

6. 7. . REFERENCES NVO-61. Projeot,RuRinon PohZ-ShoX Plum and EvaLeuatian. U. S . Atomic Energy Comnission, Nevada Operations O f f i c e , Las Vegas , Nevada, pp. v , 2-5,...

182

Notrees 1C (Vestas) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

(Vestas) Wind Farm (Vestas) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Notrees 1C (Vestas) Wind Farm Facility Notrees 1C (Vestas) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Duke Energy Carolinas LLC Developer Duke Energy Carolinas LLC Location TX Coordinates 31.9685988°, -99.9018131° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":31.9685988,"lon":-99.9018131,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

183

Nature Bulletin Table of Contents  

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

Table of Contents: Table of Contents: Here is our table of contents for the Forset Preserve District of Cook Country Nature Bulletins. To search, go to the Natuere Bulletin's Search Engine and type in your topic. You can also use your browser's "FIND" command to search the 750+ article titles here for a specific subject! Fish Smother Under Ice Coyotes in Cook County Tough Times for the Muskrats Wild Geese and Ducks Fly North Squirrels Spring Frogs Snapping Turtles A Phenomenal Spring Good People Do Not Pick Wildflowers Fire is the Enemy of Field and Forest Crows Earthworms Bees Crayfish Floods Handaxes and Knives in the Forest Preserves Ant Sanctuary Conservation Mosquitoes More About Mosquitoes Fishing in the Forest Preserve Our River Grasshoppers Chiggers Ticks Poison Ivy Fireflies

184

COST AND QUALITY TABLES 95  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 Tables 5 Tables July 1996 Energy Information Administration Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels U.S. Department of Energy Washington DC 20585 This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein should not be construed as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or any other organization. Contacts The annual publication Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Utility Plants (C&Q) will no longer be pub- lished by the EIA. The tables presented in this docu- ment are intended to replace that annual publication. Questions regarding the availability of these data should be directed to: Coal and Electric Data and Renewables Division

185

MTS Table Top Load frame  

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

MTS Table Top Load frame MTS Table Top Load frame The Non-destructive Evaluation group operates an MTS Table Top Load frame for ultimate strength and life cycle testing of various ceramic, ceramic-matrix (FGI), carbon, carbon fiber, cermet (CMC) and metal alloy engineering samples. The load frame is a servo-hydraulic type designed to function in a closed loop configuration under computer control. The system can perform non-cyclic, tension, compression and flexure testing and cyclic fatigue tests. The system is comprised of two parts: * The Load Frame and * The Control System. Load Frame The Load Frame (figure 1) is a cross-head assembly which includes a single moving grip, a stationary grip and LVDT position sensor. It can generate up to 25 kN (5.5 kip) of force in the sample under test and can

186

CBECS 1992 - Building Characteristics, Detailed Tables  

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

Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Percent of Buildings and Floorspace by Census Region, 1992 Percent of Buildings and Floorspace by Census Region, 1992 The following 70 tables present extensive cross-tabulations of commercial buildings characteristics. These data are from the Buildings Characteristics Survey portion of the 1992 CBECS. The "Quick-Reference Guide," indicates the major topics of each table. Directions for calculating an approximate relative standard error (RSE) for each estimate in the tables are presented in Figure A1, "Use of RSE Row and Column Factor." The Glossary contains the definitions of the terms used in the tables. See the preceding "At A Glance" section for highlights of the detailed tables. Table Organization

187

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 1 to 116 Complete set of Supplemental Tables Complete set of Supplemental Tables. Need help, please contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector Table 1. New England Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 2. Middle Atlantic Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 3. East North Central Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 4. West North Central

188

FRAUD POLICY Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

FRAUD POLICY Table of Contents Section 1 - General Statement Section 2 - Management's Responsibility for Preventing Fraud Section 3 - Consequences for Fraudulent Acts Section 4 - Procedures for Reporting Fraud Section 5 - Procedures for the Investigation of Alleged Fraud Section 6 - Protection Under

Shihadeh, Alan

189

CHP NOTEBOOK Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

-Specific Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Section 8 Employee Training Section 9 Inspections and Exposure1 CHP NOTEBOOK Table of Contents Section 1 Safety Program Key Personnel Section 2 Laboratory Protective Equipment (PPE) Assessment Section 18 Hazard Assessment Information and PPE Selection Information

Braun, Paul

190

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

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

2 Table 4. Offshore gross withdrawals of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2009-2013 (million cubic feet) 2009 Total 259,848 327,105 586,953 1,878,928 606,403 2,485,331...

191

PARENT HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

PARENT HANDBOOK 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Parent's Role 3 Academics 7 Academic Advising 7 Academic Services 26 Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation 28 Campus Resources and Student Services 30 to seeing you in person and connecting with you online! PARENT HANDBOOK THEPARENT'SROLE PARENT HANDBOOK 3

Adali, Tulay

192

Automatic Construction of Diagnostic Tables  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......more usual, at least in microbiology.) Keys and diagnostic tables...Mechanization and Data Handling in Microbiology, Society for Applied Bacteriology...by A. Baillie and R. J. Gilbert, London: Academic Press...cultures, Canadian Journal of Microbiology, Vol. 14, pp. 271-279......

W. R. Willcox; S. P. Lapage

1972-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

193

An optimal filtering algorithm for table constraints  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Filtering algorithms for table constraints are constraint-based, which means that the propagation queue only contains information on the constraints that must be reconsidered. This paper proposes four efficient value-based algorithms for table constraints, ...

Jean-Baptiste Mairy; Pascal Van Hentenryck; Yves Deville

2012-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

194

Table Name query? | OpenEI Community  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Table Name query? Home > Groups > Databus Is there an API feature which returns the names of tables? Submitted by Hopcroft on 28 October, 2013 - 15:37 1 answer Points: 0 if you are...

195

Chemistry Department Assessment Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

0 Chemistry Department Assessment May, 2006 Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Prelude 1 Mission Statement and Learning Goals 1 Facilities 2 Staffing 3 Students: Chemistry Majors and Student Taking Service Courses Table: 1997-2005 graduates profile Table: GRE Score for Chemistry Majors, 1993

Bogaerts, Steven

196

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

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

25 25 Table 11 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:10:53 PM Table 11. Underground natural gas storage - storage fields other than salt caverns, 2008-2013 (volumes in billion cubic feet) Natural Gas in Underground Storage at End of Period Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Storage Activity Year and Month Base Gas Working Gas Total Volume Percent Injections Withdrawals Net Withdrawals a 2008 Total b -- -- -- -- -- 2,900 2,976 76 2009 Total b -- -- -- -- -- 2,856 2,563 -293 2010 Total b -- -- -- -- -- 2,781 2,822 41 2011 January 4,166 2,131 6,298 -63 -2.9 27 780 753 February 4,166 1,597 5,763 -10 -0.6 51 586 535 March 4,165 1,426 5,591 -114 -7.4 117 288 172

197

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

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

1 1 Table 8 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:07:39 PM Table 8. Underground natural gas storage - all operators, 2008-2013 (million cubic feet) Natural Gas in Underground Storage at End of Period Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Storage Activity Year and Month Base Gas Working Gas Total a Volume Percent Injections Withdrawals Net Withdrawals b 2008 Total c -- -- -- -- -- 3,340 3,374 34 2009 Total c -- -- -- -- -- 3,315 2,966 -349 2010 Total c -- -- -- -- -- 3,291 3,274 -17 2011 January 4,303 2,306 6,609 2 0.1 50 849 799 February 4,302 1,722 6,024 39 2.3 82 666 584 March 4,302 1,577 5,879 -75 -4.6 168 314 146 April 4,304 1,788 6,092 -223 -11.1 312 100

198

Action Codes Table | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Action Codes Table | National Nuclear Security Administration Action Codes Table | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Action Codes Table Home > About Us > Our Programs > Nuclear Security > Nuclear Materials Management & Safeguards System > NMMSS Information, Reports & Forms > Code Tables > Action Codes Table

199

Description of Energy Intensity Tables (12)  

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

3. Description of Energy Intensity Data Tables 3. Description of Energy Intensity Data Tables There are 12 data tables used as references for this report. Specifically, these tables are categorized as tables 1 and 2 present unadjusted energy-intensity ratios for Offsite-Produced Energy and Total Inputs of Energy for 1985, 1988, 1991, and 1994; along with the percentage changes between 1985 and the three subsequent years (1988, 1991, and 1994) tables 3 and 4 present 1988, 1991, and 1994 energy-intensity ratios that have been adjusted to the mix of products shipped from manufacturing establishments in 1985 tables 5 and 6 present unadjusted energy-intensity ratios for Offsite-Produced Energy and Total Inputs of Energy for 1988, 1991, and 1994; along with the percentage changes between 1988 and the two subsequent

200

Sandia National Labs: PCNSC: IBA Table  

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

Home Home About Us Departments Radiation, Nano Materials, & Interface Sciences > Radiation & Solid Interactions > Nanomaterials Sciences > Surface & Interface Sciences Semiconductor & Optical Sciences Energy Sciences Small Science Cluster Business Office News Partnering Research Ion Beam Analysis (IBA) Periodic Table (HTML) IBA Table (HTML) | IBA Table (135KB GIF) | IBA Table (1.2MB PDF) | IBA Table (33MB TIF) | Heavy Ion Backscattering Spectrometry (HIBS) | Virtual Lab Tour (6MB) The purpose of this table is to quickly give the visitor to this site information on the sensitivity, depth of analysis and depth resolution of most of the modern ion beam analysis techniques in a single easy to use format: a periodic table. Note that you can click on each panel of this

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


201

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables - Supplemental  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 The AEO Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (AEO2006) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 2003 to 2030. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2006, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2006 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seventeen tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2006 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 2004-2006 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

202

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables - Supplemental  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 The AEO Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 (AEO2007) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 2005 to 2030. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2007, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2007 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and eighteen tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2007 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Projections for 2006 and 2007 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term projections and are based on more current information than the AEO.

203

Annual Energy Outlook 2007 - Low Price Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4-2030) 4-2030) Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030 MS Excel Viewer Spreadsheets are provided in Excel Low Price Case Tables (2004-2030) Table Title Formats Summary Low Price Case Tables Low Price Case Tables Table 1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption Table 8. Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions Table 9. Electricity Generating Capacity Table 10. Electricity Trade Table 11. Petroleum Supply and Disposition Balance

204

Annual Energy Outlook 2007 - Low Economic Growth Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Low Macroeconomic Growth Case Tables (2004-2030) Low Macroeconomic Growth Case Tables (2004-2030) Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030 MS Excel Viewer Spreadsheets are provided in Excel Low Economic Growth Case Tables (2004-2030) Table Title Formats Summary Low Economic Growth Case Tables Low Economic Growth Case Tables Table 1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption Table 8. Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions Table 9. Electricity Generating Capacity

205

Variable White Dwarf Data Tables  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Below, I give a brief explanation of the information in these tables. In all cases, I list the WD {number_sign}, either from the catalog of McCook {ampersand} Sion (1987) or determined by me from the epoch 1950 coordinates. Next, I list the most commonly used name (or alias), then I list the variable star designation if it is available. If not, I list the constellation name and a V** or?? depending on what the last designated variable star for that constellation is. I present epoch 2000 coordinates for all of the stars, which I precessed from the 1950 ones in most cases. I do not include proper motion effects; this is negligible for all except the largest proper motion DAV stars, such as L 19-2, BPM 37093, B 808, and G 29-38. Even in these cases, the error is no more than 30` in declination and 2 s in right ascension. I culled effective temperatures from the latest work (listed under each table); they are now much more homogeneous than before. I pulled the magnitude estimates from the appropriate paper, and they are mean values integrated over several cycles. The amplitude given is for the height of a typical pulse in the light curve. The periods correspond the dominant ones found in the light curve. In some cases, there is a band of power in a given period range, or the light curve is very complex, and I indicate this in the table. In the references, I generally list the paper with the most comprehensive pulsation analysis for the star in question. In some cases, there is more than one good reference, and I list them as well.

Bradley, P. A.

1997-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

206

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2008 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 2 0 6,256 6,258 Delaware ........................ 0 2 0 0 2 Georgia........................... 0 * 0 0 * Hawaii............................. 2,554 5 0 0 2,559 Illinois.............................. 0 15 0 0 15 Indiana............................ 0 30 0 0 30 Iowa ................................ 0 24 3 0 27 Kentucky......................... 0 15 0 0 15 Maryland ......................... 0 181 0 0 181 Massachusetts................ 0 13 0 0 13 Minnesota ....................... 0 46 0 0 46 Missouri .......................... * 6 0 0 6 Nebraska ........................ 0 28 0 0 28 New Hampshire .............. 0 44 0 0 44 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 489 489 New York ........................

207

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2009 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 3 0 7,525 7,527 Connecticut..................... 0 * 0 0 * Delaware ........................ 0 2 0 0 2 Georgia........................... 0 0 52 * 52 Hawaii............................. 2,438 9 0 0 2,447 Illinois.............................. 0 20 0 0 20 Indiana............................ 0 * 0 0 * Iowa ................................ 0 3 0 0 3 Kentucky......................... 0 18 0 0 18 Maryland ......................... 0 170 0 0 170 Massachusetts................ 0 10 0 0 10 Minnesota ....................... 0 47 0 0 47 Missouri .......................... * 10 0 0 10 Nebraska ........................ 0 18 0 0 18 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 454 454 New York ........................

208

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2010 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 4 0 5,144 5,148 Delaware ........................ 0 1 0 0 1 Georgia........................... 0 0 732 0 732 Hawaii............................. 2,465 6 0 0 2,472 Illinois.............................. 0 17 0 0 17 Indiana............................ 0 1 0 0 1 Iowa ................................ 0 2 0 0 2 Kentucky......................... 0 5 0 0 5 Louisiana ........................ 0 0 249 0 249 Maryland ......................... 0 115 0 0 115 Massachusetts................ 0 * 0 0 * Minnesota ....................... 0 12 0 0 12 Missouri .......................... * 18 0 0 18 Nebraska ........................ 0 12 0 0 12 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 457 457 New York ........................

209

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2007 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 3 0 6,866 6,869 Delaware ........................ 0 5 0 0 5 Georgia........................... 0 2 0 0 2 Hawaii............................. 2,679 4 0 0 2,683 Illinois.............................. 0 11 0 0 11 Indiana............................ 0 81 0 554 635 Iowa ................................ 0 2 38 0 40 Kentucky......................... 0 124 0 0 124 Maryland ......................... 0 245 0 0 245 Massachusetts................ 0 15 0 0 15 Minnesota ....................... 0 54 0 0 54 Missouri .......................... 7 60 0 0 66 Nebraska ........................ 0 33 0 0 33 New Hampshire .............. 0 9 0 0 9 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 379 379 New York ........................

210

Table-top job analysis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The purpose of this Handbook is to establish general training program guidelines for training personnel in developing training for operation, maintenance, and technical support personnel at Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities. TTJA is not the only method of job analysis; however, when conducted properly TTJA can be cost effective, efficient, and self-validating, and represents an effective method of defining job requirements. The table-top job analysis is suggested in the DOE Training Accreditation Program manuals as an acceptable alternative to traditional methods of analyzing job requirements. DOE 5480-20A strongly endorses and recommends it as the preferred method for analyzing jobs for positions addressed by the Order.

Not Available

1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

211

EIA-Annual Energy Outlook 2010 - Low Economic Growth Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Economic Growth Tables (2007- 2035) Economic Growth Tables (2007- 2035) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Main Low Economic Growth Tables (2007- 2035) Table Title Formats Summary Low Economic Growth Case Tables PDF Gif Year-by-Year Low Economic Growth Case Tables Excel Gif Table 1. Total Energy Supply, Disposition, and Price Summary Excel Gif Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Excel Gif Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source Excel Gif Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Excel Gif Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption Excel Gif Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Excel Gif Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption Excel Gif Table 8. Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions

212

EIA-Annual Energy Outlook 2010 - High Economic Growth Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Economic Growth Tables (2007-2035) Economic Growth Tables (2007-2035) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Main High Economic Growth Tables (2007- 2035) Table Title Formats Summary High Economic Growth Case Tables PDF Gif Year-by-Year High Economic Growth Case Tables Excel Gif Table 1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary Excel Gif Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Excel Gif Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source Excel Gif Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Excel Gif Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption Excel Gif Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Excel Gif Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption Excel Gif Table 8. Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions Excel Gif

213

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, October 1991  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Environmental Regulatory Update Table provides information on regulatory initiatives of interest to DOE operations and contractor staff with environmental management responsibilities. The table is updated each month with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Salk, M.S.

1991-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

214

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, August 1991  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Environmental Regulatory Update Table (August 1991) provides information on regulatory initiatives of interest to DOE operations and contractor staff with environmental management responsibilities. The table is updated each month with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Houlberg, L.M., Hawkins, G.T.; Salk, M.S.

1991-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

215

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, September 1991  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Environmental Regulatory Update Table provides information on regulatory initiatives of interest to DOE operations and contractor staff with environmental management responsibilities. The table is updated each month with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Salk, M.S.

1991-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

216

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, November 1991  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Environmental Regulatory Update Table provides information on regulatory initiatives of interest to DOE operations and contractor staff with environmental management responsibilities. The table is updated each month with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Salk, M.S.

1991-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

217

Environmental regulatory update table, July 1991  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Environmental Regulatory Update Table (July 1991) provides information on regulatory initiatives of interest to DOE operations and contractor staff with environmental management responsibilities. The table is updated each month with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Salk, M.S.

1991-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

218

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, November 1990  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Environmental Regulatory Update Table provides information on regulatory initiatives of interest to DOE operations and contractor staff with environmental management responsibilities. The table is updated each month with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Hawkins, G.T.; Houlberg, L.M.; Noghrei-Nikbakht, P.A.; Salk, M.S.

1990-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

219

Microsoft Word - table_09.doc  

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

3 3 Table 9 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:08:24 PM Table 9. Underground natural gas storage - by season, 2011-2013 (volumes in billion cubic feet) Natural Gas in Underground Storage at End of Period Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Storage Activity Year, Season, and Month Base Gas Working Gas Total Volume Percent Injections Withdrawals Net Withdrawals a 2011 Refill Season April 4,304 1,788 6,092 -223 -11.1 312 100 -212 May 4,304 2,187 6,491 -233 -9.6 458 58 -399 June 4,302 2,530 6,831 -210 -7.7 421 80 -340 July 4,300 2,775 7,075 -190 -6.4 359 116 -244 August 4,300 3,019 7,319 -134 -4.2 370 126 -244 September 4,301 3,416 7,717 -92 -2.6 454 55

220

All Price Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

1) 1) June 2013 State Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates 1970 Through 2011 2011 Price and Expenditure Summary Tables Table E1. Primary Energy, Electricity, and Total Energy Price Estimates, 2011 (Dollars per Million Btu) State Primary Energy Electric Power Sector g,h Retail Electricity Total Energy g,i Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass Total g,h,i Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel b LPG c Motor Gasoline d Residual Fuel Oil Other e Total Wood and Waste f Alabama 3.09 5.66 26.37 22.77 25.54 27.12 13.18 19.42 25.90 0.61 3.01 8.75 2.56 27.08 19.85 Alaska 3.64 6.70 29.33 23.12 29.76 31.60 20.07 34.62 26.61 - 14.42 20.85 6.36 47.13 25.17 Arizona 1.99 7.07 27.73 22.84 31.95 26.97 17.00 17.23 26.71 0.75 6.31 10.79 2.16 28.46 25.23 Arkansas 1.93 6.94 26.37 22.45 26.66 27.35 17.35 33.22

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


221

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

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

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Natural Gas Monthly 31 Table 13 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:28:44 PM Table 13. Activities of underground natural gas storage operators, by state, September 2013 (volumes in million cubic feet) State Field Count Total Storage Capacity Working Gas Storage Capacity Natural Gas in Underground Storage at End of Period Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Storage Activity Base Gas Working Gas Total Volume Percent Injections Withdrawals Alabama 2 35,400 27,350 8,050 21,262 29,312 2,852 15.5 1,743 450 Alaska a 5 83,592 67,915 14,197 20,455 34,652 NA NA 1,981 30 Arkansas 2 21,853 12,178 9,648 3,372 13,020 -1,050 -23.7 204 0 California 14 599,711 374,296

222

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4) 4) June 2007 State Energy Consumption Estimates 1960 Through 2004 2004 Consumption Summary Tables Table S1. Energy Consumption Estimates by Source and End-Use Sector, 2004 (Trillion Btu) State Total Energy b Sources End-Use Sectors a Coal Natural Gas c Petroleum Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Power d Biomass e Other f Net Interstate Flow of Electricity/Losses g Residential Commercial Industrial b Transportation Alabama 2,159.7 853.9 404.0 638.5 329.9 106.5 185.0 0.1 -358.2 393.7 270.2 1,001.1 494.7 Alaska 779.1 14.1 411.8 334.8 0.0 15.0 3.3 0.1 0.0 56.4 63.4 393.4 266.0 Arizona 1,436.6 425.4 354.9 562.8 293.1 69.9 8.7 3.6 -281.7 368.5 326.0 231.2 511.0 Arkansas 1,135.9 270.2 228.9 388.3 161.1 36.5 76.0 0.6 -25.7 218.3 154.7 473.9 288.9 California 8,364.6 68.9 2,474.2 3,787.8 315.6 342.2

223

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9) 9) June 2011 State Energy Consumption Estimates 1960 Through 2009 2009 Consumption Summary Tables Table C1. Energy Consumption Overview: Estimates by Energy Source and End-Use Sector, 2009 (Trillion Btu) State Total Energy b Sources End-Use Sectors a Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Renewable Energy e Net Interstate Flow of Electricity/ Losses f Net Electricity Imports Residential Commercial Industrial b Transportation Coal Natural Gas c Petroleum d Total Alabama 1,906.8 631.0 473.9 583.9 1,688.8 415.4 272.9 -470.3 0.0 383.2 266.0 788.5 469.2 Alaska 630.4 14.5 344.0 255.7 614.1 0.0 16.3 0.0 (s) 53.4 61.0 325.4 190.6 Arizona 1,454.3 413.3 376.7 520.8 1,310.8 320.7 103.5 -279.9 -0.8 400.8 352.1 207.8 493.6 Arkansas 1,054.8 264.1 248.1 343.1 855.3 158.7 126.5 -85.7 0.0 226.3 167.0 372.5

224

Microsoft Word - table_01.doc  

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

3 3 Table 1 Table 1. Summary of natural gas supply and disposition in the United States, 2008-2013 (billion cubic feet) Year and Month Gross Withdrawals Marketed Production NGPL Production a Dry Gas Production b Supplemental Gaseous Fuels c Net Imports Net Storage Withdrawals d Balancing Item e Consumption f 2008 Total 25,636 21,112 953 20,159 61 3,021 34 2 23,277 2009 Total 26,057 21,648 1,024 20,624 65 2,679 -355 -103 22,910 2010 Total 26,816 22,382 1,066 21,316 65 2,604 -13 115 24,087 2011 January 2,299 1,953 92 1,861 5 236 811 R -24 R 2,889 February 2,104 1,729 82 1,647 4 186 594 R 20 R 2,452 March 2,411 2,002 95 1,908 5 171 151 R -4 R 2,230 April 2,350 1,961 93 1,868 5 R 152 -216 R 17 R 1,825 May 2,411 2,031

225

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 2. Natural gas production, transmission, and consumption, by state, 2012 (million cubic feet) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Natural Gas Annual 4 Table 2 Alabama 215,710 7,110 -162,223 617,883 0 -2,478 0 666,738 Alaska 351,259 21,470 22,663 0 -9,342 0 0 343,110 Arizona 117 0 -13,236 389,036 -43,838 0 0 332,079 Arkansas 1,146,168 424 -18,281 -831,755 0 -103 0 295,811 California 246,822 12,755 104,820 2,222,355 -109,787 48,071 0 2,403,385 Colorado 1,709,376 81,943 -107,940 -1,077,968 0 2,570 4,412 443,367 Connecticut 0 0 4,191 225,228 0 260 0 229,159 Delaware 0 0 21,035 80,692 0 51 * 101,676 District of Columbia 0 0 497 28,075 0 0 0 28,572 Florida 18,681 0 15,168 1,294,620 0 0 0 1,328,469

226

TableHC2.12.xls  

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

Detached Attached 2 to 4 Units Energy Information Administration: 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Million U.S. Housing...

227

TableHC10.13.xls  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

or More... 0.3 Q Q Q Q Lighting Usage Indicators U.S. Census Region Northeast Midwest Table HC10.13 Lighting Usage...

228

TABLE54.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Administration (EIA) Forms EIA-812, "Monthly Product Pipeline Report," and EIA-813, Monthly Crude Oil Report." Table 54. Movements of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products by Pipeline...

229

TABLE19.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Table 19. PAD District IV-Year-to-Date Supply, Disposition, and Ending Stocks of Crude Oil and Petroleum (Thousand Barrels) January-July 2004 Products, Crude Oil...

230

TABLE15.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Table 15. PAD District III-Year-to-Date Supply, Disposition, and Ending Stocks of Crude Oil and Petroleum (Thousand Barrels) January-July 2004 Products, Crude Oil...

231

TABLE53.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Table 53. Movements of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products by Pipeline, Tanker, and Barge Between July 2004 Crude Oil ... 0 383 0...

232

TABLE11.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

(Thousand Barrels) Table 11. PAD District II-Year-to-Date Supply, Disposition, and Ending Stocks of Crude Oil and Petroleum January-July 2004 Products, Crude Oil...

233

2011 Annual Report Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

) ...................12 Smart Grid Cyber Security.....................................................13 ICT Supply ChainComputer Security Division 2011 Annual Report #12;Table of Contents Welcome ................................................................. 1 Division Organization .................................................2 The Computer Security

234

Summary Statistics Table 1. Crude Oil Prices  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Cost Report." Figure Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1996 3 Table 2. U.S. Refiner Prices of Petroleum Products to End Users (Cents per Gallon...

235

GIS DEVELOPMENT GUIDE Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

GIS DEVELOPMENT GUIDE Volume II Table of Contents SURVEY OF AVAILABLE DATA Introduction ...................................................................................13 EVALUATING GIS HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE Introduction ...................................................................................14 Sources of Information About GIS......................................................14 GIS

Ghelli, Giorgio

236

Annual Energy Outlook 2009 - High Price Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6-2030) 6-2030) Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030 XLS GIF Spreadsheets are provided in Excel High Price Case Tables (2006-2030) Table Title Formats Summary High Price Case Tables PDF GIF High Price Case Tables XLS GIF Table 1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary XLS GIF Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source XLS GIF Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source XLS GIF Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption XLS GIF Table 8. Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions XLS GIF Table 9. Electricity Generating Capacity

237

Exhibit C Table of Contents  

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

Exhibit C Schedules and Lists Exhibit C Schedules and Lists Dated 5-20-13 Subcontract No. 241314 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT "C" SCHEDULES AND LISTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Form Title A Schedule of Quantities and Prices B Milestone and Payment Schedule C Lower-Tier Subcontractor and Vendor List Exhibit C Schedules and Lists Dated 5-20-13 Subcontract No. 241314 Page 2 of 5 EXHIBIT "C" FORM A SCHEDULE OF QUANTITIES AND PRICES NOTE: This Exhibit "C" Form A is part of the model subcontract for Trinity and is provided to Offerors for informational purposes only. It is not intended that this form be returned with the Offeror's proposal. 1.0 WORK TO BE PERFORMED Work shall be performed strictly in accordance with requirements of the Subcontract

238

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2005 Alabama .................................. 255,157 9,748 13,759 37,048 Alaska...................................... 3,089,229 23,700 27,956 105,449 Arkansas.................................. 16,756 177 231 786 California ................................. 226,230 11,101 13,748 45,926 Colorado .................................. 730,948 25,603 34,782 95,881 Florida...................................... 3,584 359 495 1,400 Illinois....................................... 280 37 46 129 Kansas..................................... 476,656 22,165 31,521 85,737 Kentucky.................................. 38,792 1,411 1,716 5,725 Louisiana ................................. 2,527,636 73,035 103,381

239

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 5. Number of Producing Gas Wells by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2006-2010 Alabama .......................................................... 6,227 6,591 6,860 6,913 7,026 Alaska.............................................................. 231 239 261 261 269 Arizona ............................................................ 7 7 6 6 5 Arkansas.......................................................... 3,814 4,773 5,592 6,314 7,397 California ......................................................... 1,451 1,540 1,645 1,643 1,580 Colorado .......................................................... 20,568 22,949 25,716 27,021 28,813 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 2,419 2,552 1,527 1,984 1,852 Illinois...............................................................

240

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas, 2004-2008, and by State, 2008 2004 Total ............................ 15,223,749 -- 5.46 19,517,491 106,521,974 2005 Total ............................ 15,425,867 -- 7.33 18,927,095 138,750,746 2006 Total ............................ 15,981,421 -- 6.39 19,409,674 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ R 16,335,710 -- R 6.25 R 20,196,346 R 126,164,553 2008 Total ............................ 18,424,440 -- 7.96 21,239,516 169,038,089 Alabama ............................... 246,747 2,382,188 9.65 257,884 2,489,704 Alaska................................... 337,359 2,493,128 7.39 398,442 2,944,546 Arizona ................................. 503 3,568 7.09 523 3,710 Arkansas...............................

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


241

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 21. Number of Natural Gas Industrial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2008-2009 Alabama ...................... 2,476 281 2,757 2,789 271 3,060 Alaska.......................... 2 4 6 2 1 3 Arizona ........................ 285 98 383 274 116 390 Arkansas...................... 648 456 1,104 582 443 1,025 California ..................... 36,124 R 3,467 R 39,591 35,126 3,762 38,888 Colorado ...................... 341 4,475 4,816 297 4,787 5,084 Connecticut.................. 2,386 810 3,196 2,228 910 3,138 Delaware ..................... 96 69 165 39 73 112 Florida.......................... 161 288 449 123 484 607 Georgia........................ 1,003 1,887 2,890 956 1,298 2,254 Hawaii.......................... 27 0 27 25 0 25 Idaho............................ 108 91 199 109 78 187 Illinois...........................

242

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 21. Number of Natural Gas Industrial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2004-2005 Alabama ...................... 2,495 R 304 R 2,799 2,487 299 2,786 Alaska.......................... 6 4 10 7 5 12 Arizona ........................ 328 86 414 319 106 425 Arkansas...................... 782 R 441 R 1,223 671 449 1,120 California ..................... 39,426 2,061 41,487 38,150 2,076 40,226 Colorado ...................... 393 3,782 4,175 364 3,954 4,318 Connecticut.................. 2,625 845 3,470 2,618 819 3,437 Delaware ..................... 134 52 186 124 55 179 Florida.......................... R 174 224 R 398 159 273 432 Georgia........................ R 993 2,168 R 3,161 854 2,599 3,453 Hawaii.......................... 29 0 29 28 0 28 Idaho............................ 117 79 196 116 79 195

243

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 5. Number of Wells Producing Gas and Gas Condensate by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2001-2005 Alabama .......................................................... 4,597 4,803 5,157 5,526 5,523 Alaska.............................................................. 170 165 195 224 227 Arizona ............................................................ 8 7 9 6 6 Arkansas.......................................................... 4,825 6,755 7,606 3,460 2,878 California ......................................................... 1,244 1,232 1,249 1,272 1,356 Colorado .......................................................... 22,117 23,554 18,774 16,718 22,691 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 3,271 3,245 3,039 2,781 2,123 Illinois...............................................................

244

EM International Program Action Table  

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

EM INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE PROGRAM] October, 2012 EM INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE PROGRAM] October, 2012 E M I n t e r n a t i o n a l P r o g r a m s Page 1 ACTION TABLE Subject Lead Office Engaging Country Meeting Location Purpose Status Date of Event 3 rd US/German Workshop on Salt Repository Research, Design and Operations N. Buschman, EM-22 Germany Albuquerque & Carlsbad, NM Continue collaboration with Germans on salt repository research, design and operations. Draft agenda prepared. October 8-12, 2012 International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC) Ministerial R. Elmetti, EM- 2.1 Multilateral Marrakech, Morocco To support the development of nuclear energy infrastructure globally through workforce training, information sharing, and approaches related to the safe, secure and responsible use of

245

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2009 Alabama .................................. 248,232 11,667 17,232 42,984 Alaska...................................... 2,830,034 19,542 22,925 86,767 Arkansas.................................. 2,352 125 168 541 California ................................. 198,213 11,042 13,722 45,669 Colorado .................................. 1,233,260 47,705 67,607 174,337 Illinois....................................... 164 24 31 84 Kansas..................................... 370,670 18,863 26,948 72,922 Kentucky.................................. 60,167 2,469 3,270 9,982 Louisiana ................................. 2,175,026 67,067 95,359 250,586 Michigan .................................. 23,819 2,409

246

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2006 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ...................... 0 11 0 0 6,138 6,149 Connecticut.................. 0 91 0 0 0 91 Delaware ..................... 0 * 0 0 0 * Georgia........................ 0 3 0 0 0 3 Hawaii.......................... 2,610 3 0 0 0 2,613 Illinois........................... 0 13 0 0 0 13 Indiana......................... 0 2 0 0 1,640 1,642 Iowa ............................. 0 * 0 0 46 46 Kentucky...................... 0 3 0 0 0 3 Maryland ...................... 0 41 0 0 0 41 Massachusetts............. 0 51 0 0 0 51 Minnesota .................... 0 13 0 0 0 13 Missouri ....................... 0 78 0 0 0 78 Nebraska ..................... 0 19 0 0 0 19 New Hampshire ........... 0 92 0 0 0 92 New Jersey .................. 0 0 0 0 175 175 New York .....................

247

Microsoft Word - table_09.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

20 20 Table 9. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports, 2004-2008 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a .................................................... 3,606,543 3,700,454 3,589,995 3,782,708 3,589,221 Mexico ...................................................... 0 9,320 12,749 54,062 43,314 Total Pipeline Imports............................. 3,606,543 3,709,774 3,602,744 3,836,770 3,632,535 LNG Algeria....................................................... 120,343 97,157 17,449 77,299 0 Australia.................................................... 14,990 0 0 0 0 Egypt......................................................... 0 72,540 119,528 114,580 54,839 Equatorial Guinea .....................................

248

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2007 Alabama .................................. 257,443 13,381 19,831 48,922 Alaska...................................... 2,965,956 22,419 26,332 99,472 Arkansas.................................. 11,532 126 162 552 California ................................. 206,239 11,388 13,521 47,045 Colorado .................................. 888,705 27,447 38,180 102,563 Florida...................................... 2,422 103 132 423 Illinois....................................... 235 38 48 131 Kansas..................................... 391,022 19,600 28,063 74,941 Kentucky.................................. 38,158 1,455 1,957 5,917 Louisiana ................................. 2,857,443 77,905 110,745

249

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C11. Energy Consumption by Source, Ranked by State, 2011 Rank Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum b Retail Electricity Sales State Trillion Btu State Trillion Btu State Trillion Btu State Trillion Btu 1 Texas 1,695.2 Texas 3,756.9 Texas 5,934.3 Texas 1,283.1 2 Indiana 1,333.4 California 2,196.6 California 3,511.4 California 893.7 3 Ohio 1,222.6 Louisiana 1,502.9 Louisiana 1,925.7 Florida 768.0 4 Pennsylvania 1,213.0 New York 1,246.9 Florida 1,680.3 Ohio 528.0 5 Illinois 1,052.2 Florida 1,236.6 New York 1,304.0 Pennsylvania 507.6 6 Kentucky 1,010.6 Pennsylvania 998.6 Pennsylvania 1,255.6 New York 491.5

250

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2008 Alabama .................................. 253,028 11,753 17,222 43,191 Alaska...................................... 2,901,760 20,779 24,337 92,305 Arkansas.................................. 6,531 103 139 446 California ................................. 195,272 11,179 13,972 46,176 Colorado .................................. 1,029,641 37,804 53,590 139,332 Florida...................................... 300 16 22 65 Illinois....................................... 233 33 42 115 Kansas..................................... 397,587 19,856 28,302 76,021 Kentucky.................................. 58,899 1,783 2,401 7,233 Louisiana ................................. 2,208,920 66,369 94,785 245,631

251

Microsoft Word - table_09.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 9. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports, 2002-2006 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a .................................................... 3,784,978 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,700,454 3,589,995 Mexico ...................................................... 1,755 0 0 9,320 12,749 Total Pipeline Imports............................. 3,786,733 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,709,774 3,602,744 LNG Algeria....................................................... 26,584 53,423 120,343 97,157 17,449 Australia.................................................... 0 0 14,990 0 0 Brunei ....................................................... 2,401 0 0 0 0 Egypt.........................................................

252

Microsoft Word - table_09.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 9. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports, 2001-2005 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a .................................................... 3,728,537 3,784,978 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,700,454 Mexico ...................................................... 10,276 1,755 0 0 9,320 Total Pipeline Imports............................. 3,738,814 3,786,733 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,709,774 LNG Algeria....................................................... 64,945 26,584 53,423 120,343 97,157 Australia.................................................... 2,394 0 0 14,990 0 Brunei ....................................................... 0 2,401 0 0 0 Egypt.........................................................

253

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 5. Number of Wells Producing Gas and Gas Condensate by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2002-2006 Alabama .......................................................... 4,803 5,157 5,526 5,523 6,227 Alaska.............................................................. 165 195 224 227 231 Arizona ............................................................ 7 9 6 6 7 Arkansas.......................................................... 6,755 7,606 3,460 R 3,462 3,811 California ......................................................... 1,232 1,249 1,272 1,356 1,451 Colorado .......................................................... 23,554 18,774 16,718 22,691 20,568 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 3,245 3,039 2,781 2,123 1,946 Illinois...............................................................

254

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

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

9 9 Table 21. Number of natural gas commercial consumers by type of service and state, 2011-2012 R Revised data. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition." Please see the cautionary note regarding the number of residential and commercial customers located on the second page of Appendix A of this report. Alabama R 67,561 135 R 67,696 67,099 135 67,234 Alaska R 12,724 303 R 13,027 13,073 61 13,134 Arizona 56,349 198 56,547 56,252 280 56,532 Arkansas 67,454 361 67,815 68,151 614 68,765

255

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 5. Number of Wells Producing by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2003-2007 Alabama .......................................................... 5,157 5,526 5,523 6,227 6,591 Alaska.............................................................. 195 224 227 231 239 Arizona ............................................................ 9 6 6 7 7 Arkansas.......................................................... 7,606 3,460 3,462 R 3,814 4,773 California ......................................................... 1,249 1,272 1,356 1,451 1,540 Colorado .......................................................... 18,774 16,718 22,691 20,568 22,949 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 3,039 2,781 2,123 R 2,419 2,552 Illinois...............................................................

256

Microsoft Word - table_09.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 9. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports, 2003-2007 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a .................................................... 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,700,454 3,589,995 3,782,708 Mexico ...................................................... 0 0 9,320 12,749 54,062 Total Pipeline Imports............................. 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,709,774 3,602,744 3,836,770 LNG Algeria....................................................... 53,423 120,343 97,157 17,449 77,299 Australia.................................................... 0 14,990 0 0 0 Egypt......................................................... 0 0 72,540 119,528 114,580 Equatorial Guinea .....................................

257

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 21. Number of Natural Gas Industrial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2007-2008 Alabama ...................... 2,409 295 2,704 2,476 281 2,757 Alaska.......................... 7 4 11 2 4 6 Arizona ........................ 296 99 395 285 98 383 Arkansas...................... 637 418 1,055 648 456 1,104 California ..................... 35,814 3,320 39,134 36,124 3,533 39,657 Colorado ...................... 298 4,294 4,592 341 4,475 4,816 Connecticut.................. 2,472 845 3,317 2,386 810 3,196 Delaware ..................... 125 60 185 96 69 165 Florida.......................... 156 311 467 161 288 449 Georgia........................ R 1,013 1,900 R 2,913 1,003 1,887 2,890 Hawaii.......................... 27 0 27 27 0 27 Idaho............................ 109 79 188 108 91 199 Illinois...........................

258

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2006 Alabama .................................. 287,278 14,736 21,065 54,529 Alaska...................................... 2,665,742 20,993 24,638 93,346 Arkansas.................................. 13,702 166 212 734 California ................................. 223,580 11,267 14,056 46,641 Colorado .................................. 751,036 26,111 36,317 97,697 Florida...................................... 3,972 357 485 1,416 Illinois....................................... 242 37 47 128 Kansas..................................... 453,111 21,509 30,726 83,137 Kentucky.................................. 39,559 1,666 2,252 6,763 Louisiana ................................. 2,511,802 73,551 105,236

259

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas by State, 2005-2009 2005 Total ............................ 15,425,867 -- 7.33 18,927,095 138,750,746 2006 Total ............................ 15,981,421 -- 6.39 19,409,674 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ 16,335,710 -- 6.25 20,196,346 126,164,553 2008 Total ............................ R 18,305,411 -- R 7.97 R 21,112,053 R 168,342,230 2009 Total ............................ 18,763,726 -- 3.67 21,604,158 79,188,096 Alabama ............................... 225,666 975,789 4.32 236,029 1,020,599 Alaska................................... 397,077 1,163,555 2.93 397,077 1,163,554 Arizona ................................. 695 2,214 3.19 712 2,269 Arkansas............................... 680,613 2,332,956 3.43

260

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 21. Number of natural gas commercial consumers by type of service and state, 2010-2011 R Revised data. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition." Please see the cautionary note regarding the number of residential and commercial customers located on the second page of Appendix A of this report. Alabama R 68,017 146 R 68,163 67,522 135 67,657 Alaska 12,673 325 12,998 12,721 303 13,024 Arizona 56,510 166 56,676 56,349 198 56,547 Arkansas 67,676 311 67,987 67,454 361 67,815 California 399,290 40,282

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


261

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas by State, 2006-2010 2006 Total ............................ 15,981,421 -- 6.39 19,409,674 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ 16,335,710 -- 6.25 20,196,346 126,164,553 2008 Total ............................ 18,305,411 -- 7.97 21,112,053 168,342,230 2009 Total ............................ 18,763,726 -- 3.67 R 21,647,936 R 79,348,561 2010 Total ............................ 19,262,198 -- 4.48 22,402,141 100,272,654 Alabama ............................... 212,769 949,340 4.46 222,932 994,688 Alaska................................... 316,546 1,002,566 3.17 374,226 1,185,249 Arizona ................................. 165 676 4.11 183 753 Arkansas............................... 936,600 3,594,843 3.84

262

Microsoft Word - table_10.doc  

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

4 4 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:09:15 PM Table 10. Underground natural gas storage - salt cavern storage fields, 2008-2013 (volumes in billion cubic feet) Natural Gas in Underground Storage at End of Period Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Storage Activity Year and Month Base Gas Working Gas Total Volume Percent Injections Withdrawals Net Withdrawals a 2008 Total b -- -- -- -- -- 440 398 -42 2009 Total b -- -- -- -- -- 459 403 -56 2010 Total b -- -- -- -- -- 511 452 -58 2011 January 137 174 311 65 59.3 23 69 46 February 137 125 262 48 62.5 30 80 49 March 137 151 288 39 34.8 51 25 -25 April 140 172 312 17 11.2 42 21 -22 May 140 211 352

263

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2005 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ...................... 0 2 0 0 5,283 5,285 Connecticut.................. 0 273 0 0 0 273 Delaware ..................... 0 * 0 0 0 * Georgia........................ 0 * 0 0 0 * Hawaii.......................... 2,593 14 0 0 0 2,606 Illinois........................... 0 11 0 4 0 15 Indiana......................... 0 30 0 0 1,958 1,988 Iowa ............................. 0 2 0 30 0 31 Kentucky...................... 0 15 0 0 0 15 Maryland ...................... 0 382 0 0 0 382 Massachusetts............. 0 46 0 0 0 46 Minnesota .................... 0 154 0 0 0 154 Missouri ....................... 0 15 0 0 0 15 Nebraska ..................... 0 16 0 * 0 16 New Hampshire ........... 0 84 0 0 0 84 New Jersey .................. 0 0 0 0 435 435 New York

264

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

17 17 Table C12. Total Energy Consumption, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Energy Consumption per Real Dollar of GDP, Ranked by State, 2011 Rank Total Energy Consumption Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Energy Consumption per Real Dollar of GDP State Trillion Btu State Billion Chained (2005) Dollars State Thousand Btu per Chained (2005) Dollar 1 Texas 12,206.6 California 1,735.4 Louisiana 19.7 2 California 7,858.4 Texas 1,149.9 Wyoming 17.5 3 Florida 4,217.1 New York 1,016.4 North Dakota 15.4 4 Louisiana 4,055.3 Florida 661.1 Alaska 14.3 5 Illinois 3,977.8 Illinois 582.1 Mississippi 13.8 6 Ohio 3,827.6 Pennsylvania 500.4 Kentucky 13.5

265

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas, 2003-2007, and by State, 2007 2003 Total ............................ 14,589,545 -- 4.88 19,974,360 97,555,375 2004 Total ............................ 15,223,749 -- 5.46 19,517,491 106,521,974 2005 Total ............................ 15,425,867 -- 7.33 18,927,095 138,750,746 2006 Total ............................ R 15,981,421 -- R 6.39 R 19,409,674 R 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ 16,031,199 -- 6.37 20,019,321 127,530,680 Alabama ............................... 259,062 1,926,374 7.44 270,407 2,010,736 Alaska................................... 368,344 2,072,647 5.63 433,485 2,439,193 Arizona ................................. 634 3,791 5.98 655 3,913 Arkansas...............................

266

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2010 Alabama .................................. 242,444 13,065 19,059 47,741 Alaska...................................... 2,731,803 17,798 20,835 79,355 Arkansas.................................. 9,599 160 213 692 California ................................. 204,327 10,400 13,244 42,509 Colorado .................................. 1,434,003 57,924 82,637 209,191 Kansas..................................... 341,778 18,424 26,251 70,425 Kentucky.................................. 66,579 3,317 4,576 13,311 Louisiana ................................. 2,207,760 71,231 102,448 262,178 Michigan .................................. 23,449 2,207 2,943 8,272 Mississippi ...............................

267

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

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

7 7 Table 7. Supplemental gas supplies by state, 2012 (million cubic feet) Colorado 0 99 0 4,313 4,412 Georgia 0 0 660 0 660 Hawaii 2,491 20 0 0 2,510 Illinois 0 1 0 0 1 Indiana 0 1 0 0 1 Kentucky 0 1 0 0 1 Louisiana 0 0 553 0 553 Maryland 0 116 0 0 116 Minnesota 0 9 0 0 9 Missouri * 0 0 0 * Nebraska 0 4 0 0 4 New Jersey 0 0 0 139 139 North Dakota 52,541 0 0 0 52,541 Ohio 0 6 360 0 366 Pennsylvania 0 2 0 0 2 Vermont 0 3 0 0 3 Virginia 0 48 0 0 48 Total 55,032 309 1,573 4,452 61,366 State Synthetic Natural Gas Propane-Air Biomass Gas Other Total * Volume is less than 500,000 cubic feet.

268

All Price Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4) 4) June 2007 State Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates 1970 Through 2004 2004 Price and Expenditure Summary Tables Table S1a. Energy Price Estimates by Source, 2004 (Nominal Dollars per Million Btu) State Primary Energy Electric Power Sector d,e Retail Electricity Total Energy d,f Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass c Total d,e,f Distillate Fuel Jet Fuel LPG a Motor Gasoline Residual Fuel Other b Total Alabama 1.57 7.72 11.91 8.82 15.78 13.68 4.78 8.25 12.28 0.43 1.81 5.32 1.68 18.01 11.29 Alaska 1.91 3.59 12.43 9.61 19.64 15.55 3.63 12.09 11.05 - 6.68 9.07 3.18 32.29 11.09 Arizona 1.31 6.84 13.59 9.53 18.40 15.33 5.29 7.23 13.92 0.45 5.90 6.68 2.18 21.83 15.24 Arkansas 1.25 8.09 12.01 8.30 14.80 13.97 4.67 11.02 12.77 0.49 1.79 6.59 1.43 16.76 11.89 California 1.82 7.63 13.58

269

All Price Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7) 7) August 2009 State Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates 1970 Through 2007 2007 Price and Expenditure Summary Tables Table S1a. Energy Price Estimates by Source, 2007 (Nominal Dollars per Million Btu) State Primary Energy Electric Power Sector e,f Retail Electricity Total Energy e,g Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass Total e,f,g Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel LPG b Motor Gasoline Residual Fuel Oil Other c Total Wood and Waste d Alabama 2.17 9.06 19.43 16.20 21.84 21.26 8.46 14.19 19.62 0.42 2.71 7.47 2.29 22.46 16.01 Alaska 2.34 5.76 19.43 16.35 28.63 22.14 11.51 23.69 17.97 - 10.51 14.88 4.94 38.96 17.87 Arizona 1.61 8.44 19.84 16.24 27.16 21.95 10.04 11.27 20.50 0.57 10.86 9.61 2.78 25.02 20.72 Arkansas 1.65 9.33 19.63 15.73 21.10 21.54 8.65 18.76 20.42 0.57 2.66 9.45 1.98 20.57

270

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: PREINTERVIEW OBSERVATION  

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: PREINTERVIEW OBSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SECTION B: HOUSING TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SECTION C: HOME HEATING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SECTION D: AIR CONDITIONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 SECTION E: WATER HEATING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 SECTION F: LIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 SECTION G: APPLIANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Cooking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Refrigerators and Freezers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

271

Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook  

Reports and Publications (EIA)

The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the AEO using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO projections.

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

272

Tables in Context: Integrating Horizontal Displays with  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

design challenges for tabletop interfaces: integrating access to public and private information, managing a cooperative gesture to organize digital documents on an interactive table. Our tabletop interface designTables in Context: Integrating Horizontal Displays with Ubicomp Environments Abstract Our work

Klemmer, Scott

273

Tafel Musik: Formatting algorithm of tables  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper provides a description on the formatting algorithm of tables that the authors have developed. This algorithm is an important component of the so called TafeMusik (Tafel Musik) environment. TafeMusikprovides the user with an environment to ... Keywords: First-fit algorithm, Linear programming, Optimization, Tables, Tabular formatting, Tabular layout

K. -H. Shin; K. Kobayashi; A. Suzuki

1997-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

274

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector Table 1. New England Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 2. Middle Atlantic Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 3. East North Central Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 4. West North Central Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 5. South Atlantic Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

275

Data:Fc10f2fe-6c8e-4581-bf1c-1c5167a29c76 | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

fe-6c8e-4581-bf1c-1c5167a29c76 fe-6c8e-4581-bf1c-1c5167a29c76 No revision has been approved for this page. It is currently under review by our subject matter experts. Jump to: navigation, search Loading... 1. Basic Information 2. Demand 3. Energy << Previous 1 2 3 Next >> Basic Information Utility name: City of Kings Mountain, North Carolina (Utility Company) Effective date: 2011/07/31 End date if known: Rate name: Outdoor Lighting Service- 175W Mercury Vapor- Suburban, New Pole w/UG Sector: Lighting Description: Available to individual customer at locations on the City's distribution system. Source or reference: http://www.cityofkm.com/Downloads/billing/Electric_Rates.pdf Source Parent: Comments Applicability Demand (kW) Minimum (kW): Maximum (kW): History (months): Energy (kWh) Minimum (kWh):

276

Data:D950a1c4-4ec7-4914-bbcd-a2c1c03af787 | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

0a1c4-4ec7-4914-bbcd-a2c1c03af787 0a1c4-4ec7-4914-bbcd-a2c1c03af787 No revision has been approved for this page. It is currently under review by our subject matter experts. Jump to: navigation, search Loading... 1. Basic Information 2. Demand 3. Energy << Previous 1 2 3 Next >> Basic Information Utility name: Jefferson Electric Member Corp Effective date: 2010/11/01 End date if known: Rate name: SCHEDULE I-8 - greater than 30 kVA (Single Phase - Non-Interruptible Energy Charge) Sector: Commercial Description: Applicable for electric service supplied to irrigation loads. The capacity of individual motors served under this schedule shall not exceed ten (10) horsepower without consent from the Cooperative. Source or reference: ISU Documentation Source Parent: Comments String representation "Whenever the co ... escribed below:" is too long.

277

Data:0636de1c-da4c-45ac-83c7-70732c06bc1c | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

de1c-da4c-45ac-83c7-70732c06bc1c de1c-da4c-45ac-83c7-70732c06bc1c No revision has been approved for this page. It is currently under review by our subject matter experts. Jump to: navigation, search Loading... 1. Basic Information 2. Demand 3. Energy << Previous 1 2 3 Next >> Basic Information Utility name: City of Monticello, Georgia (Utility Company) Effective date: 2011/01/01 End date if known: Rate name: Electric Commercial Outside Sector: Commercial Description: Source or reference: Illinois State University Source Parent: Comments Applicability Demand (kW) Minimum (kW): Maximum (kW): History (months): Energy (kWh) Minimum (kWh): Maximum (kWh): History (months): Service Voltage Minimum (V): Maximum (V): Character of Service Voltage Category: Phase Wiring: << Previous 1 2 3 Next >> << Previous

278

Data:7b072f6c-1c1c-4038-9b36-4ca5c20b982a | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

c-1c1c-4038-9b36-4ca5c20b982a c-1c1c-4038-9b36-4ca5c20b982a No revision has been approved for this page. It is currently under review by our subject matter experts. Jump to: navigation, search Loading... 1. Basic Information 2. Demand 3. Energy << Previous 1 2 3 Next >> Basic Information Utility name: Public Service Elec & Gas Co Effective date: 2010/06/07 End date if known: Rate name: 100 WATT METAL HALIDE Sector: Lighting Description: Source or reference: http://www.pseg.com/family/pseandg/tariffs/electric/pdf/electric_tariff.pdf Source Parent: Comments Applicability Demand (kW) Minimum (kW): Maximum (kW): History (months): Energy (kWh) Minimum (kWh): Maximum (kWh): History (months): Service Voltage Minimum (V): Maximum (V): Character of Service Voltage Category: Phase Wiring: << Previous

279

1999 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey Detailed Tables  

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

Consumption and Expenditures Tables Table C1. Total Energy Consumption by Major Fuel ............................................... 124 Table C2. Total Energy Expenditures by Major Fuel................................................ 130 Table C3. Consumption for Sum of Major Fuels ...................................................... 135 Table C4. Expenditures for Sum of Major Fuels....................................................... 140 Table C5. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by Census Region for Sum of Major Fuels................................................................................................... 145 Table C6. Expenditures by Census Region for Sum of Major Fuels......................... 150 Table C7. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by Building Size for Sum of

280

T-583: Linux Kernel OSF Partition Table Buffer Overflow Lets...  

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

3: Linux Kernel OSF Partition Table Buffer Overflow Lets Local Users Obtain Information T-583: Linux Kernel OSF Partition Table Buffer Overflow Lets Local Users Obtain Information...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


281

ATP 3-57.20 MCRP 3-33.1C  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

ATP 3-57.20 MCRP 3-33.1C Multi-Service Techniques for Civil Affairs Support to Foreign Humanitarian://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/index.html). #12;ATP 3-57.20 MCRP 3-33.1C DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution .......................................................................................................... 5-12 #12;Contents ii ATP 3-57.20/MCRP 3-33.1C 15 February 2013 Chapter 6 FUNDING SOURCES

US Army Corps of Engineers

282

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

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

7 7 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:04:58 PM Table 3. Selected national average natural gas prices, 2008-2013 (dollars per thousand cubic feet, except where noted) Year and Month NGL Composite Spot Price a Natural Gas Spot Price b Citygate Price Delivered to Consumers Electric Power Price d Residential Commercial Industrial Price % of Total c Price % of Total c Price % of Total c 2008 Annual Average 15.20 8.86 9.18 13.89 97.5 12.23 79.7 9.65 20.4 9.26 2009 Annual Average 8.99 5.24 6.48 12.14 97.4 10.06 77.8 5.33 18.8 4.93 2010 Annual Average 11.83 4.37 6.18 11.39 97.4 9.47 77.5 5.49 18.0 5.27 2011 January 13.03 4.49 5.69 9.90 96.5 R 8.74 72.8 R 5.66 R 16.8 5.66 February 13.64 4.09 5.75 10.14 96.5 8.88 72.0 R 5.77 R 16.6

283

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 6. Natural gas processed, liquids extracted, and estimated extraction loss by state, 2011 Alabama 230,546 12,265 17,271 43,636 Alaska 2,721,396 18,314 21,554 82,255 Arkansas 5,611 212 268 883 California 180,648 9,831 12,095 39,909 Colorado 1,507,467 63,075 90,801 223,858 Illinois 15,727 705 1,043 2,409 Kansas 322,944 18,098 25,804 67,845 Kentucky 60,941 3,398 4,684 13,377 Louisiana 2,048,175 66,426 95,630 239,349 Michigan 21,518 2,132 2,465 7,875 Mississippi 126,859 7,732 11,221 28,404 Montana 11,185 927 1,252 3,744 New Mexico 795,069 61,857 90,291 223,829 North Dakota 112,206 10,199 14,182 41,156 Oklahoma 1,218,855 91,963 134,032 328,694 Pennsylvania 131,959 6,721 8,931 26,896 Tennessee 6,200

284

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 18. Natural Gas Delivered to Industrial Consumers for the Account of Others by State, 2001-2005 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 120,717 77.85 125,467 78.45 124,857 78.77 R 129,337 R 79.22 115,449 76.41 Alaska................................... 2,539 3.78 6,411 9.76 11,433 27.77 15,472 R 33.10 16,582 31.35 Arizona ................................. 11,380 53.61 10,089 58.81 9,174 60.05 9,290 44.85 9,569 56.37 Arkansas............................... 114,976 94.00 112,544 95.03 105,215 94.65 R 94,613 R 94.06 84,177 94.77 California .............................. 606,097 90.94 682,886 92.26 740,589 95.06 791,981 94.75 738,704 94.54 Colorado ............................... 136,704 99.27 128,709 98.75 111,291 99.07 111,316 99.23 125,618 99.41

285

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3 3 Table 5. Number of producing gas wells by state and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2008-2012 Alabama 6,860 6,913 7,026 7,063 6,327 Alaska 261 261 269 277 185 Arizona 6 6 5 5 5 Arkansas 5,592 6,314 7,397 8,388 8,538 California 1,645 1,643 1,580 1,308 1,423 Colorado 25,716 27,021 28,813 30,101 32,000 Gulf of Mexico 1,527 1,984 1,852 1,559 1,474 Illinois 45 51 50 40 40 Indiana 525 563 620 914 819 Kansas 17,862 21,243 22,145 25,758 24,697 Kentucky 16,290 17,152 17,670 14,632 17,936 Louisiana 19,213 18,860 19,137 21,235 19,792 Maryland 7 7 7 8 9 Michigan 9,995 10,600 10,100 11,100 10,900 Mississippi 2,343 2,320 1,979 5,732 1,669 Missouri 0 0 0 53 100 Montana 7,095 7,031 6,059 6,477 6,240 Nebraska 322 285 276 322 270 Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 New Mexico 44,241 44,784

286

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 2. Natural gas production, transmission, and consumption, by state, 2011 (million cubic feet) Alabama 195,581 17,271 -53,277 480,317 0 7,282 0 598,068 Alaska 356,225 21,554 14,450 0 -16,398 0 0 332,723 Arizona 168 0 -17,607 348,820 -42,026 0 0 289,357 Arkansas 1,072,212 268 3,943 -791,878 0 212 0 283,797 California 250,177 12,095 72,353 1,954,947 -91,287 20,598 0 2,153,498 Colorado 1,637,576 90,801 -76,093 -1,005,837 0 3,128 4,268 465,985 Connecticut 0 0 1,253 228,585 0 129 0 229,710 Delaware 0 0 11,756 67,928 0 -31 0 79,716 District of Columbia 0 0 1,961 31,016 0 0 0 32,976 Florida 15,125 0 -5,102 1,208,317 0 0 0 1,218,340 Georgia 0 0 -10,315 459,390 75,641 2,542 701 522,874 Gulf of Mexico 1,812,328 0 -82 -1,711,029 0

287

Microsoft Word - table_26.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 26. Percent distribution of natural gas supply and disposition by state, 2011 Alabama 0.8 2.5 Alaska 1.5 1.4 Arizona < 1.2 Arkansas 4.7 1.2 California 1.0 8.8 Colorado 6.8 1.9 Connecticut -- 0.9 Delaware -- 0.3 District of Columbia -- 0.1 Florida 0.1 5.0 Georgia -- 2.1 Gulf of Mexico 7.9 0.4 Hawaii -- < Idaho -- 0.3 Illinois < 4.0 Indiana < 2.6 Iowa -- 1.3 Kansas 1.2 1.1 Kentucky 0.5 0.9 Louisiana 12.8 5.7 Maine -- 0.3 Maryland < 0.8 Massachusetts -- 1.8 Michigan 0.6 3.2 Minnesota -- 1.7 Mississippi 0.3 1.8 Missouri -- 1.1 Montana 0.3 0.3 Nebraska < 0.7 Nevada < 1.0 New Hampshire -- 0.3 New Jersey -- 2.7 New Mexico 5.0 1.0 New York 0.1

288

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2008 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 18.30 100.00 15.58 80.17 10.57 27.20 17.32 10.03 Alaska................................... 8.72 100.00 8.66 74.90 5.49 78.23 -- W Arizona ................................. 17.60 100.00 13.01 93.06 10.47 29.65 11.00 8.60 Arkansas............................... 14.09 100.00 11.32 64.49 10.56 3.87 -- 9.23 California .............................. 12.75 99.31 11.75 56.69 10.80 4.85 11.32 8.23 Colorado ............................... 9.77 100.00 9.01 95.24 8.76 0.56 13.57 7.02 Connecticut........................... 17.85 97.75 13.81 70.71 12.63 47.28 24.04 10.48 Delaware .............................. 16.07 100.00 14.24

289

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 18. Natural Gas Delivered to Industrial Consumers for the Account of Others by State, 2004-2008 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 129,337 79.22 115,449 76.41 114,699 76.48 R 114,325 R 75.97 103,662 72.80 Alaska................................... 15,472 33.10 16,582 31.35 11,619 36.94 5,934 30.04 1,304 21.77 Arizona ................................. 9,290 44.85 9,569 56.37 11,457 62.11 13,292 68.67 14,200 70.35 Arkansas............................... 94,613 94.06 84,177 94.77 83,347 95.22 82,213 95.85 81,841 96.13 California .............................. 791,981 94.75 738,704 94.54 690,491 94.32 699,283 94.69 726,927 95.15 Colorado ............................... 111,316 99.23 125,618 99.41 110,565 99.38 116,699 99.55 119,032 99.44 Connecticut...........................

290

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 11. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Exports By Point of Exit, 2005-2009 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet, Prices in Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Pipeline (Canada) Calais, ME .......................... 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 2,131 5.62 Detroit, MI ........................... 40,255 8.12 22,156 7.61 22,904 6.88 27,220 8.37 43,980 4.01 Eastport, ID......................... 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 252 7.43 113 4.49 Marysville, MI...................... 5,222 7.92 3,483 7.36 9,158 7.77 8,756 7.48 14,925 4.85 Sault Ste. Marie, MI ............ 5,537 8.13 5,070 8.11 4,389 7.13 3,122 8.75 2,044 5.04 St. Clair, MI ......................... 286,804 7.77 286,582 7.39 418,765 7.24 R 492,235 R 8.96 612,369 4.62 Noyes, MN .......................... 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Babb, MT ............................

291

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 22. Average City Gate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2003-2007 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 6.06 6.65 8.47 10.26 8.78 Alaska................................... 2.33 3.05 3.74 5.25 6.75 Arizona ................................. 4.87 5.63 7.32 7.67 8.25 Arkansas............................... 6.07 7.12 8.83 7.96 8.55 California .............................. 5.16 6.04 7.88 6.76 6.82 Colorado ............................... 4.11 5.02 6.10 7.61 6.23 Connecticut........................... 5.59 7.56 9.74 9.11 8.67 Delaware .............................. 5.88 6.13 8.32 8.84 7.58 Florida................................... 5.87 6.60 9.30 8.32 7.97 Georgia................................. 6.25 6.81 9.85 9.37 8.15

292

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

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

4 4 Table 14. Underground natural gas storage capacity by state, December 31, 2012 (million cubic feet) Alabama 1 16,150 21,900 0 0 0 1 11,200 13,500 2 27,350 35,400 Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12,178 21,853 2 12,178 21,853 California 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 349,296 592,411 14 349,296 592,411 Colorado 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 60,582 124,253 10 60,582 124,253 Illinois 0 0 0 17 215,594 779,862 11 87,368 220,070 28 302,962 999,931 Indiana 0 0 0 12 19,215 80,746 10 13,809 30,003 22 33,024 110,749 Iowa 0 0 0 4 90,313 288,210 0 0 0 4 90,313 288,210 Kansas 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 122,968 283,974 19 123,343 284,905 Kentucky 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 100,971 212,184 23 107,600 221,751 Louisiana 11 200,702 297,020 0 0 0 7 211,780 402,626 18 412,482

293

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 18. Natural Gas Delivered to Industrial Consumers for the Account of Others by State, 2005-2009 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 115,449 76.4 114,699 76.5 114,325 76.0 103,662 72.8 94,597 72.1 Alaska................................... 16,582 31.4 11,619 36.9 5,934 30.0 1,304 21.8 1,827 27.5 Arizona ................................. 9,569 56.4 11,457 62.1 13,292 68.7 14,200 70.4 12,730 70.9 Arkansas............................... 84,177 94.8 83,347 95.2 82,213 95.8 81,841 96.1 74,752 96.4 California .............................. 738,704 94.5 690,491 94.3 699,283 94.7 R 683,512 R 94.9 673,034 95.3 Colorado ............................... 125,618 99.4 110,565 99.4 116,699 99.5 119,032 99.4 112,995 99.5 Connecticut...........................

294

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2006 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 1 8,300 0 0 1 11,000 2 19,300 0.23 Arkansas............................... 0 0 0 0 2 22,000 2 22,000 0.26 California .............................. 0 0 0 0 12 484,711 12 484,711 5.82 Colorado ............................... 0 0 0 0 8 98,068 8 98,068 1.18 Illinois.................................... 0 0 18 881,037 11 103,731 29 984,768 11.82 Indiana.................................. 0 0 12 81,490 10 32,804 22 114,294 1.37 Iowa ...................................... 0 0 4 275,200 0 0 4 275,200 3.30 Kansas.................................. 1 1,088 0 0 18 287,295 19 288,383 3.46 Kentucky............................... 0 0 3 9,567 20 208,827 23 218,394

295

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2002-2006 (Million Cubic Feet) 2002 Total ................ 485,126 211,778 696,905 3,722,249 893,193 4,615,443 5,312,348 Alabama.................. 202,002 0 202,002 NA NA NA 202,002 Alaska..................... 102,972 190,608 293,580 0 0 0 293,580 California................. 0 7,068 7,068 3,080 64,735 67,816 74,884 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 3,719,169 828,458 4,547,627 4,547,627 Louisiana ................ 125,481 11,711 137,192 NA NA NA 137,192 Texas...................... 54,672 2,391 57,063 NA NA NA 57,063 2003 Total ................ 456,090 254,150 710,240 3,565,614 939,828 4,505,443 5,215,683 Alabama.................. 194,339 0 194,339 NA NA NA 194,339 Alaska..................... 85,606 236,404 322,010

296

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 11. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Exports By Point of Exit, 2004-2008 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet, Prices in Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Pipeline (Canada) Eastport, ID......................... 48 5.36 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 252 7.43 Detroit, MI ........................... 40,030 6.47 40,255 8.12 22,156 7.61 22,904 6.88 27,220 8.37 Marysville, MI...................... 4,455 6.83 5,222 7.92 3,483 7.36 9,158 7.77 8,756 7.48 Sault Ste. Marie, MI ............ 6,666 6.38 5,537 8.13 5,070 8.11 4,389 7.13 3,122 8.75 St. Clair, MI ......................... 317,797 6.56 286,804 7.77 286,582 7.39 418,765 7.24 524,065 8.98 Noyes, MN .......................... 2,193 5.77 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Babb, MT ............................ 1,429 4.98 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Havre, MT ...........................

297

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 22. Average City Gate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2004-2008 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 6.65 8.47 10.26 8.78 9.84 Alaska................................... 3.05 3.74 5.25 6.75 6.74 Arizona ................................. 5.63 7.32 7.67 8.25 8.49 Arkansas............................... 7.12 8.83 7.96 8.55 8.88 California .............................. 6.04 7.88 6.76 6.82 8.11 Colorado ............................... 5.02 6.10 7.61 6.23 6.98 Connecticut........................... 7.56 9.74 9.11 8.67 10.24 Delaware .............................. 6.13 8.32 8.84 7.58 8.32 Florida................................... 6.60 9.30 8.32 7.97 9.73 Georgia................................. 6.81 9.85 9.37 8.15 9.35

298

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 8. Summary of U.S. natural gas imports, 2007-2011 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a 3,782,708 3,589,089 3,271,107 3,279,752 3,117,081 Mexico 54,062 43,314 28,296 29,995 2,672 Total Pipeline Imports 3,836,770 3,632,403 3,299,402 3,309,747 3,119,753 LNG Algeria 77,299 0 0 0 0 Egypt 114,580 54,839 160,435 72,990 35,120 Equatorial Guinea 17,795 0 0 0 0 Nigeria 95,028 12,049 13,306 41,733 2,362 Norway 0 14,882 29,327 26,014 15,175 Peru 0 0 0 16,045 16,620 Qatar 18,352 3,108 12,687 45,583 90,972 Trinidad/Tobago 447,758 266,821 236,202 189,748 128,620 Yemen 0 0 0 38,897 60,071 Total LNG Imports 770,812 351,698

299

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2007 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 18.13 100.00 15.07 79.82 8.70 24.02 -- 7.19 Alaska................................... 8.68 100.00 7.57 76.01 4.67 69.96 -- 3.58 Arizona ................................. 17.21 100.00 12.84 93.36 10.49 31.33 9.40 6.84 Arkansas............................... 13.08 100.00 10.07 70.38 9.51 4.15 8.39 7.04 California .............................. 11.57 99.50 10.20 60.63 9.07 5.31 7.71 6.72 Colorado ............................... 8.84 100.00 8.10 95.70 7.21 0.45 8.72 4.35 Connecticut........................... 16.39 98.20 12.61 71.49 10.54 50.04 20.57 7.81 Delaware .............................. 16.21 100.00 14.48

300

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 13. Additions to and Withdrawals from Gas Storage by State, 2005 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ................... 15,572 15,356 216 493 606 -114 103 Alaska....................... 0 0 0 738 738 0 0 Arkansas................... 4,394 4,707 -313 72 51 20 -293 California .................. 190,055 179,359 10,696 82 50 31 10,727 Colorado ................... 38,588 39,442 -854 0 0 0 -854 Connecticut............... 0 0 0 1,383 682 701 701 Delaware .................. 0 0 0 138 145 -7 -7 Georgia..................... 0 0 0 4,179 2,660 1,520 1,520 Idaho......................... 0 0 0 46 189 -143 -143 Illinois........................ 260,515 259,288 1,226 3 405 -402 824 Indiana...................... 21,405 22,827 -1,422 831 1,066 -236 -1,658 Iowa .......................... 66,827 70,206 -3,379 2,626 2,845 -219

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


301

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2005-2009 (Million Cubic Feet) 2005 Total ................ 363,652 321,019 684,671 2,474,076 730,830 3,204,906 3,889,577 Alabama.................. 152,902 0 152,902 NA NA NA 152,902 Alaska..................... 74,928 305,641 380,568 0 0 0 380,568 California................. 0 6,685 6,685 684 53,404 54,088 60,773 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 2,473,392 677,426 3,150,818 3,150,818 Louisiana ................ 99,290 8,294 107,584 NA NA NA 107,584 Texas...................... 36,532 400 36,932 NA NA NA 36,932 2006 Total ................ 321,261 308,391 629,652 2,272,669 681,869 2,954,538 3,584,190 Alabama.................. 145,762 0 145,762 NA NA NA 145,762 Alaska..................... 62,156 292,660 354,816

302

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 20. Number of natural gas residential consumers by type of service and state, 2011-2012 Alabama R 772,892 0 R 772,892 767,412 0 767,412 Alaska 121,736 0 121,736 122,983 0 122,983 Arizona 1,146,280 6 1,146,286 1,157,682 6 1,157,688 Arkansas 551,795 0 551,795 549,959 0 549,959 California R 10,545,585 R 79,605 10,625,190 10,547,706 134,210 10,681,916 Colorado 1,645,711 5 1,645,716 1,659,803 5 1,659,808 Connecticut 494,065 905 494,970 503,241 897 504,138 Delaware 152,005 0 152,005 153,307 0 153,307 District of Columbia 130,888 14,636 145,524 129,674 16,264 145,938 Florida 664,564 R 14,635 R 679,199 672,160 14,861 687,021 Georgia 321,515 1,418,491 1,740,006 319,179 1,420,364 1,739,543 Hawaii 25,305 0 25,305

303

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 11. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Exports By Point of Exit, 2003-2007 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet, Prices in Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Pipeline (Canada) Eastport, ID......................... 15 4.34 48 5.36 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Detroit, MI ........................... 19,737 5.47 40,030 6.47 40,255 8.12 22,156 7.61 22,904 6.88 Marysville, MI...................... 811 5.06 4,455 6.83 5,222 7.92 3,483 7.36 9,158 7.77 Sault Ste. Marie, MI ............ 605 4.94 6,666 6.38 5,537 8.13 5,070 8.11 4,389 7.13 St. Clair, MI ......................... 238,444 6.13 317,797 6.56 286,804 7.77 286,582 7.39 418,765 7.24 Noyes, MN .......................... 172 5.43 2,193 5.77 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Babb, MT ............................ 38 6.48 1,429 4.98 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Havre, MT ...........................

304

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2006-2010 (Million Cubic Feet) 2006 Total ................ 321,261 308,391 629,652 2,272,669 681,869 2,954,538 3,584,190 Alabama.................. 145,762 0 145,762 NA NA NA 145,762 Alaska..................... 62,156 292,660 354,816 0 0 0 354,816 California................. 156 6,654 6,809 2,094 38,313 40,407 47,217 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 2,270,575 643,556 2,914,131 2,914,131 Louisiana ................ 88,657 8,822 97,479 NA NA NA 97,479 Texas...................... 24,529 255 24,785 NA NA NA 24,785 2007 Total ................ 276,117 341,925 618,042 2,204,379 654,334 2,858,713 3,476,755 Alabama.................. 134,451 0 134,451 NA NA NA 134,451 Alaska..................... 48,876 325,328 374,204

305

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 3. Gross withdrawals and marketed production of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2008-2012 (million cubic feet) 2008 Total 15,134,644 5,609,425 2,022,228 2,869,960 25,636,257 3,638,622 166,909 718,674 21,112,053 953,451 20,158,602 2009 Total 14,414,287 5,674,120 2,010,171 3,958,315 26,056,893 3,522,090 165,360 721,507 21,647,936 1,024,082 20,623,854 2010 Total 13,247,498 5,834,703 1,916,762 5,817,122 26,816,085 3,431,587 165,928 836,698 22,381,873 1,066,366 21,315,507 2011 Total 12,291,070 5,907,919 1,779,055 8,500,983 28,479,026 3,365,313 209,439 867,922 24,036,352 1,134,473 22,901,879 2012 Total 12,736,678 4,969,668 1,539,395 10,296,572 29,542,313 3,259,680 212,848 761,836 25,307,949 1,250,340 24,057,609

306

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Created on: 1/7/2014 9:25:31 AM Table 7. Marketed production of natural gas in selected states and the Federal Gulf of Mexico, 2008-2013 (million cubic feet) Year and Month Alaska Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Wyoming Other a States Federal Gulf of Mexico U.S. Total 2008 Total 398,442 1,377,969 1,446,204 1,886,710 6,960,693 2,274,850 4,452,843 2,314,342 21,112,053 2009 Total 397,077 1,548,607 1,383,004 1,901,556 6,818,973 2,335,328 4,834,474 2,428,916 21,647,936 2010 Total 374,226 2,210,099 1,292,185 1,827,328 6,715,294 2,305,525 5,412,154 2,245,062 22,381,873 2011 January 31,027 224,410 100,352 154,940 588,714 178,331 496,362 178,597 1,952,732 February 31,076 208,495 88,553

307

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2007 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 1 8,300 0 0 1 11,000 2 19,300 0.23 Arkansas............................... 0 0 0 0 2 22,000 2 22,000 0.26 California .............................. 0 0 0 0 12 487,711 12 487,711 5.80 Colorado ............................... 0 0 0 0 8 98,068 8 98,068 1.17 Illinois.................................... 0 0 18 876,960 11 103,731 29 980,691 11.67 Indiana.................................. 0 0 12 81,490 10 32,804 22 114,294 1.36 Iowa ...................................... 0 0 4 278,238 0 0 4 278,238 3.31 Kansas.................................. 1 931 0 0 18 287,996 19 288,926 3.44 Kentucky............................... 0 0 3 9,567 20 210,792 23 220,359

308

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 3. Gross Withdrawals and Marketed Production of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2004-2008 (Million Cubic Feet) 2004 Total ............. 17,885,247 6,084,431 NA 23,969,678 3,701,656 96,408 654,124 19,517,491 926,600 18,590,891 2005 Total ............. 17,471,847 5,984,975 NA 23,456,822 3,699,535 119,097 711,095 18,927,095 876,497 18,050,598 2006 Total ............. 17,995,554 5,539,464 NA 23,535,018 3,264,929 129,469 730,946 19,409,674 906,069 18,503,605 2007 Total ............. 17,065,375 R 5,818,405 1,779,875 R 24,663,656 R 3,662,685 R 143,457 R 661,168 R 20,196,346 930,320 R 19,266,026 2008 Total ............. 18,011,151 5,844,798 1,898,399 25,754,348 3,638,563 166,588 709,681 21,239,516 953,451 20,286,065 Alabama Total ...... 159,912 6,368 111,273 277,553 475 1,801 17,394

309

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2004-2008 (Million Cubic Feet) 2004 Total ................ 401,662 279,249 680,911 3,214,488 840,852 4,055,340 4,736,252 Alabama.................. 165,630 0 165,630 NA NA NA 165,630 Alaska..................... 73,457 260,667 334,125 0 0 0 334,125 California................. 0 6,966 6,966 850 53,805 54,655 61,622 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 3,213,638 787,047 4,000,685 4,000,685 Louisiana ................ 117,946 11,299 129,245 NA NA NA 129,245 Texas...................... 44,630 316 44,946 NA NA NA 44,946 2005 Total ................ 363,652 321,019 684,671 2,474,076 730,830 3,204,906 3,889,577 Alabama.................. 152,902 0 152,902 NA NA NA 152,902 Alaska..................... 74,928 305,641 380,568

310

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

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

5 5 Created on: 12/12/2013 1:57:32 PM Table 2. Natural gas consumption in the United States, 2008-2013 (billion cubic feet) Delivered to Consumers Year and Month Lease and Plant Fuel a Pipeline and Distribution Use b Residential Commercial Industrial Electric Power Vehicle Fuel Total Total Consumption 2008 Total 1,220 648 4,892 3,153 6,670 6,668 26 21,409 23,277 2009 Total 1,275 670 4,779 3,119 6,167 6,873 27 20,965 22,910 2010 Total 1,286 674 4,782 3,103 6,826 7,387 29 22,127 24,087 2011 January 107 R 83 970 528 R 659 540 3 R 2,699 R 2,889 February 97 70 R 768 432 R 600 484 2 R 2,285 R 2,452 March 111 63 R 595 R 361 R 616 482 3 R 2,056 R 2,230 April 109 51 R 341 R 232 R 569 521 R 2 R 1,665 R 1,825 May 112 46 R 205 R 166 R

311

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2008 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............. 1 11,900 15,900 0 0 0 1 9,000 11,000 2 20,900 26,900 Arkansas............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14,500 22,000 2 14,500 22,000 California ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 283,796 498,705 12 283,796 498,705 Colorado ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 42,579 95,068 8 42,579 95,068 Illinois.................. 0 0 0 18 244,900 874,384 10 51,418 103,606 28 296,318 977,989 Indiana................ 0 0 0 12 19,978 81,991 10 12,791 32,946 22 32,769 114,937 Iowa .................... 0 0 0 4 87,350 284,747 0 0 0 4 87,350 284,747 Kansas................ 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 118,885 281,291 19 119,260 282,221 Kentucky............. 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 94,598 210,792 23 101,227 220,359 Louisiana ............

312

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 13. Additions to and Withdrawals from Gas Storage by State, 2006 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ................... 20,604 12,127 8,477 704 698 7 8,484 Arkansas................... 4,789 4,081 707 45 57 -12 695 California .................. 168,957 182,247 -13,290 92 76 16 -13,274 Colorado ................... 35,836 38,506 -2,670 0 0 0 -2,670 Connecticut............... 0 0 0 532 246 286 286 Delaware .................. 0 0 0 68 68 * * Georgia..................... 0 0 0 7,705 1,963 5,742 5,742 Idaho......................... 0 0 0 415 275 140 140 Illinois........................ 242,754 235,590 7,163 238 358 -119 7,044 Indiana...................... 23,598 20,707 2,891 1,447 1,172 275 3,165 Iowa .......................... 68,750 65,187 3,563 2,438 1,540 899 4,462 Kansas...................... 103,105 99,698 3,407

313

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2001-2005 (Million Cubic Feet) 2001 Total ................ 508,374 170,206 678,580 4,146,993 989,969 5,136,962 5,815,542 Alabama.................. 200,862 0 200,862 NA NA NA 200,862 Alaska..................... 113,870 149,067 262,937 0 0 0 262,937 California................. 0 7,262 7,262 3,913 67,034 70,947 78,209 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 4,143,080 922,935 5,066,015 5,066,015 Louisiana ................ 140,358 13,513 153,871 NA NA NA 153,871 Texas...................... 53,285 364 53,649 NA NA NA 53,649 2002 Total ................ 485,126 211,778 696,905 3,722,249 893,193 4,615,443 5,312,348 Alabama.................. 202,002 0 202,002 NA NA NA 202,002 Alaska..................... 102,972 190,608 293,580

314

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 25. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential and Commercial Sector Consumers by Local Distribution and Marketers in Selected States, 2009-2010 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Florida................................... 20.22 R 18.41 20.18 97.7 17.85 19.44 17.89 97.9 Georgia................................. 13.20 16.81 16.30 14.1 12.18 15.67 15.17 14.3 Maryland ............................... 13.09 R 16.80 13.73 82.8 12.20 13.51 12.44 81.7 New Jersey ........................... 14.49 R 16.52 14.54 97.7 12.77 14.87 12.84 96.6 New York .............................. 14.96 R 15.38 15.05 77.1 13.87 14.55 14.04 74.6 Ohio ...................................... 11.64 13.64 12.68 47.8 10.28 11.80 11.13 43.7 Pennsylvania ........................ 14.56 R 16.46 14.74 90.9

315

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3 3 Table 22. Average City Gate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2002-2006 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 4.74 6.06 6.65 8.47 10.26 Alaska................................... 2.36 2.33 3.05 3.74 5.25 Arizona ................................. 3.77 4.87 5.63 7.32 7.67 Arkansas............................... 5.17 6.07 7.12 8.83 7.96 California .............................. 3.20 5.16 6.04 7.88 6.76 Colorado ............................... 2.72 4.11 5.02 6.10 7.61 Connecticut........................... 6.42 5.59 7.56 R 9.74 9.11 Delaware .............................. 5.37 5.88 6.13 8.32 8.84 Florida................................... 3.90 5.87 6.60 9.30 8.32 Georgia................................. 4.55 6.25 6.81 9.85 9.37 Hawaii...................................

316

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 20. Number of Natural Gas Residential Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2009-2010 Alabama ...................... R 785,005 0 R 785,005 768,921 0 768,921 Alaska.......................... 120,124 0 120,124 121,166 0 121,166 Arizona ........................ 1,130,047 0 1,130,047 1,138,448 0 1,138,448 Arkansas...................... 557,355 0 557,355 549,970 0 549,970 California ..................... R 10,454,747 R 56,203 R 10,510,950 10,469,734 72,850 10,542,584 Colorado ...................... 1,622,429 5 1,622,434 1,634,582 5 1,634,587 Connecticut.................. 488,614 735 489,349 489,380 805 490,185 Delaware ..................... 149,006 0 149,006 150,458 0 150,458 District of Columbia...... 129,738 13,698 143,436 130,048 14,103 144,151 Florida.......................... 659,725 14,365

317

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 20. Number of Natural Gas Commercial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2008-2009 Alabama ...................... R 65,193 120 R 65,313 67,468 128 67,596 Alaska.......................... 12,267 497 12,764 12,854 363 13,217 Arizona ........................ 57,481 105 57,586 57,022 169 57,191 Arkansas...................... 68,943 201 69,144 68,794 249 69,043 California ..................... 417,531 29,629 447,160 406,270 35,225 441,495 Colorado ...................... 144,543 176 144,719 145,455 169 145,624 Connecticut.................. 50,023 3,880 53,903 50,106 4,404 54,510 Delaware ..................... 12,619 84 12,703 12,726 113 12,839 District of Columbia...... 6,838 3,186 10,024 6,706 3,582 10,288 Florida.......................... 41,164 16,961 58,125 41,748 17,801 59,549

318

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2009 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 18.12 100.0 14.93 78.7 6.48 27.9 19.17 4.30 Alaska................................... 10.23 100.0 9.51 85.3 4.02 72.5 -- W Arizona ................................. 17.65 100.0 12.15 88.0 8.19 29.1 14.96 4.16 Arkansas............................... 13.39 100.0 10.71 59.4 8.47 3.6 -- 4.14 California .............................. 9.43 98.9 7.75 54.9 6.57 4.7 7.61 4.44 Colorado ............................... 8.80 100.0 7.56 94.8 6.57 0.5 9.12 4.27 Connecticut........................... 14.81 97.5 9.92 69.0 8.44 37.5 15.26 4.89 Delaware .............................. 17.79 100.0 15.87 53.5 13.99 2.1 14.12 W District of Columbia...............

319

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 13. Additions to and Withdrawals from Gas Storage by State, 2010 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ................... 23,026 16,740 6,286 946 968 -21 6,264 Arkansas................... 4,672 4,368 304 42 40 2 306 California .................. 226,810 203,653 23,157 56 54 2 23,159 Colorado ................... 43,250 45,010 -1,760 0 0 0 -1,760 Connecticut............... 0 0 0 651 473 178 178 Delaware .................. 0 0 0 73 76 -2 -2 Georgia..................... 0 0 0 2,693 2,314 379 379 Idaho......................... 0 0 0 142 72 70 70 Illinois........................ 247,458 245,135 2,323 398 325 74 2,397 Indiana...................... 21,943 22,454 -511 1,983 1,148 835 324 Iowa .......................... 76,407 78,444 -2,037 1,458 1,312 146 -1,891 Kansas...................... 113,253 121,737 -8,484

320

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 24. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential and Commercial Sector Consumers by Local Distribution and Marketers in Selected States, 2006-2007 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Florida................................... 21.48 24.62 21.54 97.95 20.55 23.23 20.61 97.79 Georgia................................. 15.84 18.81 R 18.37 14.70 14.64 18.02 17.53 14.35 Maryland ............................... 16.14 17.41 16.36 82.27 14.95 16.26 15.17 83.26 New Jersey ........................... 14.87 17.69 R 14.91 98.66 14.45 16.50 14.48 98.35 New York .............................. 15.09 16.99 15.35 86.06 15.50 15.46 15.49 84.07 Ohio ...................................... 14.41 14.36 14.39 58.77 13.05 13.95 13.47 53.01 Pennsylvania ........................ 16.48 16.06 16.45

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


321

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas, 2001-2005, and by State, 2005 2001 Total ............................ 19,577,660 -- 4.00 20,570,295 82,202,805 2002 Total ............................ 14,467,289 -- 2.95 19,884,780 58,596,868 2003 Total ............................ 14,589,545 -- 4.88 19,974,360 97,555,375 2004 Total ............................ 15,223,749 -- 5.46 R 19,517,491 R 106,521,974 2005 Total ............................ 15,525,771 -- 7.33 18,950,734 138,987,902 Alabama ............................... 285,237 2,645,780 9.28 296,528 2,750,513 Alaska................................... 502,887 2,387,581 4.75 487,282 2,313,492 Arizona ................................. 211 1,445 6.86 233 1,599 Arkansas............................... 190,533 1,383,193 7.26

322

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2010 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............. 1 16,150 21,900 0 0 0 1 9,000 11,000 2 25,150 32,900 Arkansas............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13,898 21,760 2 13,898 21,760 California ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 311,096 542,511 13 311,096 542,511 Colorado ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 49,119 105,768 9 49,119 105,768 Illinois.................. 0 0 0 17 216,132 772,381 11 87,368 218,106 28 303,500 990,487 Indiana................ 0 0 0 13 19,437 81,268 9 13,545 30,003 22 32,982 111,271 Iowa .................... 0 0 0 4 90,613 288,010 0 0 0 4 90,613 288,010 Kansas................ 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 122,814 283,891 19 123,190 284,821 Kentucky............. 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 100,971 212,184 23 107,600 221,751 Louisiana ............

323

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 24. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential and Commercial Sector Consumers by Local Distribution and Marketers in Selected States, 2007-2008 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Florida................................... 20.55 23.23 20.61 97.79 21.11 25.00 21.19 97.78 Georgia................................. 14.64 18.02 17.53 14.35 15.46 18.73 18.26 14.43 Maryland ............................... 14.95 16.26 15.17 83.26 15.98 16.54 16.08 83.15 New Jersey ........................... 14.45 16.50 14.48 98.35 15.15 18.07 15.21 97.98 New York .............................. R 15.79 15.46 R 15.73 R 82.34 16.79 16.57 16.75 80.64 Ohio ...................................... 13.05 13.95 13.47 53.01 14.60 14.45 14.52 52.47 Pennsylvania ........................

324

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2009 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............. 1 11,900 15,900 0 0 0 1 9,000 11,000 2 20,900 26,900 Arkansas............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13,898 21,760 2 13,898 21,760 California ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 296,096 513,005 13 296,096 513,005 Colorado ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 48,129 105,768 9 48,129 105,768 Illinois.................. 0 0 0 18 252,344 885,848 10 51,418 103,606 28 303,761 989,454 Indiana................ 0 0 0 12 19,367 81,328 10 12,791 32,946 22 32,157 114,274 Iowa .................... 0 0 0 4 87,414 284,811 0 0 0 4 87,414 284,811 Kansas................ 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 118,964 281,370 19 119,339 282,300 Kentucky............. 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 96,855 210,801 23 103,484 220,368 Louisiana ............

325

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

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

5 5 Table 8. Summary of U.S. natural gas imports, 2008-2012 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a 3,589,089 3,271,107 3,279,752 3,117,081 2,962,827 Mexico 43,314 28,296 29,995 2,672 314 Total Pipeline Imports 3,632,403 3,299,402 3,309,747 3,119,753 2,963,140 LNG by Vessel Egypt 54,839 160,435 72,990 35,120 2,811 Nigeria 12,049 13,306 41,733 2,362 0 Norway 14,882 29,327 26,014 15,175 6,212 Peru 0 0 16,045 16,620 0 Qatar 3,108 12,687 45,583 90,972 33,823 Trinidad/Tobago 266,821 236,202 189,748 128,620 112,207 Yemen 0 0 38,897 60,071 19,595 Total LNG Imports 351,698 451,957 431,010 348,939 174,649 Total Imports 3,984,101 3,751,360

326

Microsoft Word - table_19.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 19. Number of Natural Gas Residential Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2004-2005 Alabama ...................... R 806,660 R 0 R 806,660 799,256 0 799,256 Alaska.......................... 104,360 0 104,360 108,401 0 108,401 Arizona ........................ 993,885 0 993,885 1,042,662 0 1,042,662 Arkansas...................... R 554,844 0 R 554,844 555,861 0 555,861 California ..................... 9,921,331 R 36,081 R 9,957,412 10,092,466 31,967 10,124,433 Colorado ...................... R 1,496,873 3 R 1,496,876 1,524,810 3 1,524,813 Connecticut.................. 468,918 414 469,332 474,807 414 475,221 District of Columbia...... 120,709 17,425 138,134 127,139 13,873 141,012 Delaware ..................... 133,197 0 133,197 137,115 0 137,115 Florida.......................... R 628,104 10,910

327

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 20. Number of Natural Gas Commercial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2006-2007 Alabama ...................... R 66,222 115 R 66,337 65,738 118 65,856 Alaska.......................... 12,858 1,526 14,384 12,491 917 13,408 Arizona ........................ 56,955 136 57,091 57,047 122 57,169 Arkansas...................... 69,318 157 69,475 69,319 176 69,495 California ..................... 426,379 15,673 442,052 421,449 24,671 446,120 Colorado ...................... 139,566 180 139,746 141,201 219 141,420 Connecticut.................. 49,056 3,926 52,982 48,522 3,867 52,389 Delaware ..................... 12,288 57 12,345 12,507 69 12,576 District of Columbia...... 7,004 3,406 10,410 6,867 3,048 9,915 Florida.......................... 41,190 14,069 55,259 41,325 15,995 57,320

328

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 11. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Exports By Point of Exit, 2001-2005 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet, Prices in Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Pipeline (Canada) Eastport, ID......................... 0 -- 176 4.40 15 4.34 48 5.36 0 -- Detroit, MI ........................... 35,644 4.57 7,431 3.03 19,737 5.47 40,030 6.47 40,255 8.12 Marysville, MI...................... 3,651 3.92 0 -- 811 5.06 4,455 6.83 5,222 7.92 Sault Ste. Marie, MI ............ 0 -- 0 -- 605 4.94 6,666 6.38 5,537 8.13 St. Clair, MI ......................... 122,293 3.82 164,084 3.42 238,444 6.13 317,797 6.56 286,804 7.77 Noyes, MN .......................... 0 -- 71 1.99 172 5.43 2,193 5.77 0 -- Babb, MT ............................ 549 3.55 143 2.28 38 6.48 1,429 4.98 0 -- Havre, MT ...........................

329

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2005 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 15.82 100.00 13.13 81.65 9.51 23.59 -- 9.67 Alaska................................... 5.73 100.00 4.93 51.19 2.59 68.65 -- 3.42 Arizona ................................. 13.54 100.00 9.85 93.29 8.53 43.63 7.91 8.24 Arkansas............................... 13.65 100.00 10.20 74.07 9.44 5.23 10.16 8.59 California .............................. 11.86 99.66 10.69 68.67 9.84 5.46 8.80 8.09 Colorado ............................... 10.29 99.99 9.39 95.15 8.68 0.59 8.17 7.41 Connecticut........................... 16.24 98.75 13.00 70.34 11.68 46.41 14.60 9.31 District of Columbia............... 16.87 79.76 13.17 100.00 --

330

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 Table 4. Offshore gross withdrawals of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2007-2011 (million cubic feet) 2007 Total 276,117 341,925 618,042 2,204,379 654,334 2,858,713 3,476,755 Alabama 134,451 0 134,451 NA NA NA 134,451 Alaska 48,876 325,328 374,204 0 0 0 374,204 California 312 6,977 7,289 2,137 43,379 45,516 52,805 Gulf of Mexico 0 0 0 2,202,242 610,955 2,813,197 2,813,197 Louisiana 63,357 9,512 72,868 NA NA NA 72,868 Texas 29,121 108 29,229 NA NA NA 29,229 2008 Total 297,565 356,139 653,704 1,849,891 524,965 2,374,857 3,028,561 Alabama 125,502 0 125,502 NA NA NA 125,502 Alaska 43,079 345,109 388,188 0 0 0 388,188 California 266 6,764 7,029 1,601 43,300 44,902

331

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2003-2007 (Million Cubic Feet) 2003 Total ................ 456,090 254,150 710,240 3,565,614 939,828 4,505,443 5,215,683 Alabama.................. 194,339 0 194,339 NA NA NA 194,339 Alaska..................... 85,606 236,404 322,010 0 0 0 322,010 California................. 0 6,866 6,866 1,731 56,363 58,095 64,961 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 3,563,883 883,465 4,447,348 4,447,348 Louisiana ................ 123,939 9,517 133,456 NA NA NA 133,456 Texas...................... 52,206 1,363 53,569 NA NA NA 53,569 2004 Total ................ 401,662 279,249 680,911 3,214,488 840,852 4,055,340 4,736,252 Alabama.................. 165,630 0 165,630 NA NA NA 165,630 Alaska..................... 73,457 260,667 334,125

332

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

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

8 8 Table 25. Average price of natural gas delivered to residential and commercial sector consumers by local distribution and marketers in selected states, 2011-2012 (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Georgia 11.98 16.38 15.72 15.1 12.47 16.82 16.23 13.5 New York 13.52 14.22 13.71 72.4 12.72 13.59 12.97 71.2 Ohio 10.32 11.09 10.78 40.8 8.75 10.42 9.91 30.9 Residential 2011 2012 State Local Distribution Company Average Price a Marketer Average Price b Combined Average Price c Percent Sold by Local Distribution Company Local Distribution Company Average Price a Marketer Average Price b Combined Average Price c Percent Sold by Local Distribution Company a Price derived from Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition."

333

EIA - Reference Case Projection Tables 1990-2030  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Tables (1990-2030) Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2006 Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region, Reference Case Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel, Reference Case Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

334

FY 2005 Control Table by Organization  

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

Organization Organization (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) Table of Contents Summary...................................................................................................... 1 Mandatory Funding....................................................................................... 2 National Nuclear Security Administration..................................................... 3 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.................................................... 4 Electric Transmission and Distribution......................................................... 4 Fossil Energy................................................................................................ 5 Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology...................................................

335

Federal Buildings Supplemental Survey -- Publication and Tables  

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

Overview > Publication and Tables Overview > Publication and Tables Publication and Tables Percent of FBSS Buildings and Floorspace by Selected Agencies, FY 1993 Percent of FBSS buildings and floorspace by selected agencies, FY 1993 Sources: Energy Information Administration, Energy Markets and End Use, 1993 Federal Buildings Supplemental Survey. Separater Bar Separater Bar You have the option of downloading the entire report or selected sections of the report. Full Report - Federal Buildings Supplemental Survey, 1993 (file size 1.15 MB) pages: 183 Selected Sections Main Text (file size 161,775 bytes) pages: 17. - Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader Contacts Preface Contents Introduction At a Glance Highlights on Federal Buildings Detailed Tables Appendices Appendix A. How the Survey Was Conducted (file size 45,191 bytes) pages: 8.

336

Precision Flow Table | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Table Table Jump to: navigation, search Basic Specifications Facility Name Flow Table Overseeing Organization United States Army Corp of Engineers (ERDC) Hydrodynamic Testing Facility Type Flow Table Length(m) 2.4 Beam(m) 1.2 Water Type Freshwater Cost(per day) Contact POC Towing Capabilities Towing Capabilities None Wavemaking Capabilities Wavemaking Capabilities None Channel/Tunnel/Flume Channel/Tunnel/Flume Yes Wind Capabilities Wind Capabilities None Control and Data Acquisition Description Automated data acquisition and control system Cameras None Available Sensors Flow, Pressure Range(psi), Turbulence, Velocity, Wave Probe Data Generation Capability Real-Time No Test Services Test Services Yes Past Pertinent Test Experience Users are District Engineers, Planners, and Engineering Consultants

337

FY 2005 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Appropriation Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) Table of Contents Summary...................................................................................................... 1 Mandatory Funding....................................................................................... 3 Energy Supply.............................................................................................. 4 Non-Defense site acceleration completion................................................... 5 Uranium enrichment D&D fund.................................................................... 5 Non-Defense environmental services.......................................................... 5 Science.........................................................................................................

338

Commercial Buildings Characteristics 1992 - Publication and Tables  

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

Buildings Characteristics Data > Publication and Tables Buildings Characteristics Data > Publication and Tables Publication and Tables Percent of Buildings and Floorspace by Census Region, 1992 figure on percent of building and floorspace by census region, 1992 separater bar To View and/or Print Reports (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) - Download Adobe Acrobat Reader If you experience any difficulties, visit our Technical Frequently Asked Questions. You have the option of downloading the entire report or selected sections of the report. Full Report - Commercial Buildings Characteristics, 1992 with only selected tables (file size 1.34 MB) pages: 157 Selected Sections: Main Text (file size 883,980 bytes) pages: 28, includes the following: Contacts Contents Executive Summary Introduction Background Organization of the report

339

ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

#12;ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents Web: http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu Colorado Climate Spring 2002 Vol. 3, No. 2 Lightning in Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Colorado Climate in Review

340

TableHC11.12.xls  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

... 2.8 0.3 Q 0.2 Million U.S. Housing Units Home Electronics Usage Indicators Table HC11.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by Northeast Census Region,...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


341

TableHC6.13.xls  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Q 5 or More... 0.3 N Q Q Q Q Lighting Usage Indicators 4 Members 5 or More Members Table HC6.13 Lighting Usage Indicators by...

342

TABLES3.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

S3. Crude Oil and Petroleum Product Imports, 1988 - Present (Thousand Barrels per Day) See footnotes at end of table. 1988 Average ... 300 58 345 343 92 80 0 0 1989...

343

Table of Contents Resilient Sustainable Communities  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

..................................... 5 Onondaga County: Sustainable Development Plan....................... 9 Comparison of the Hazard Mitigation Plan and Onondaga County Sustainable Development Plan DraftTable of Contents Resilient Sustainable Communities: Integrating Hazard Mitigation & Sustainability

344

Table of Contents Chapter and Content Pages  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

#12;Page 2 Table of Contents Chapter and Content Pages 1. Field Trip Itinerary ................................................................................. 7 4. Geologic Framework of the Netherlands Antilles 5. Coral Reefs of the Netherlands Antilles

Fouke, Bruce W.

345

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C9. Electric Power Sector Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Electric Power Hydroelectric Power b Biomass Geothermal Solar/PV d Wind Net Electricity Imports e Total f Distillate Fuel Oil Petroleum Coke Residual Fuel Oil Total Wood and Waste c Alabama ............. 586.1 349.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 411.8 86.3 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,439.3 Alaska ................. 6.0 42.3 3.3 0.0 1.5 4.8 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 (s) 66.3 Arizona ............... 449.9 183.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 327.3 89.1 2.4 0.0 0.8 2.5 1.5 1,057.9 Arkansas ............. 300.5 109.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 148.5 28.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 588.9 California ............ 19.7 630.1 0.4 11.1 (s) 11.5 383.6 413.4 69.0 122.0 8.4 75.3 20.1 1,753.1 Colorado ............. 362.4 88.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 20.2 0.9

346

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 3. Gross withdrawals and marketed production of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2007-2011 (million cubic feet) 2007 Total R 14,991,891 R 5,681,871 R 1,999,748 1,990,145 24,663,656 3,662,685 143,457 661,168 20,196,346 930,320 19,266,026 2008 Total R 15,134,644 R 5,609,425 R 2,022,228 R 2,869,960 25,636,257 3,638,622 166,909 718,674 21,112,053 953,451 20,158,602 2009 Total R 14,414,287 R 5,674,120 R 2,010,171 R 3,958,315 26,056,893 3,522,090 165,360 721,507 21,647,936 1,024,082 20,623,854 2010 Total R 13,247,498 R 5,834,703 1,916,762 5,817,122 R 26,816,085 3,431,587 165,928 836,698 R 22,381,873 R 1,066,366 R 21,315,507 2011 Total 12,291,070 5,907,919 1,779,055 8,500,983 28,479,026 3,365,313 209,439 867,922 24,036,352 1,134,473 22,901,879

347

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 18. Natural gas delivered to commercial consumers for the account of others by state, 2008-2012 (volumes in million cubic feet) Alabama 4,999 19.8 5,160 21.2 5,494 20.3 5,313 21.1 5,126 23.8 Alaska 4,274 25.1 2,448 14.7 1,951 12.3 2,208 R 11.4 1,005 5.1 Arizona 2,258 6.9 3,866 12.0 3,605 11.3 3,988 12.2 4,213 13.4 Arkansas 13,112 35.5 14,776 40.6 17,862 44.4 19,402 48.5 24,772 59.8 California 108,738 43.3 111,702 45.1 113,903 45.9 R 112,448 45.7 126,571 50.0 Colorado 3,132 4.8 3,240 5.2 3,118 5.4 3,457 6.2 4,061 7.8 Connecticut 11,032 29.3 12,324 31.0 14,068 34.6 15,519 34.6 14,774 34.9 Delaware 2,611 29.4 5,438 46.5 6,117 50.2 4,879 46.6 5,647 56.3 District of Columbia 15,110 82.1 15,550 83.1 15,507 83.6 14,029

348

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 18. Natural gas delivered to commercial consumers for the account of others by state, 2007-2011 (volumes in million cubic feet) Alabama 4,722 20.2 4,999 19.8 5,160 21.2 5,494 R 20.3 5,313 21.1 Alaska 4,499 24.0 4,274 25.1 2,448 14.7 1,951 12.3 2,208 13.3 Arizona 2,172 6.6 2,258 6.9 3,866 12.0 3,605 11.3 3,988 12.2 Arkansas 9,534 29.6 13,112 35.5 14,776 40.6 17,862 44.4 19,402 48.5 California 98,776 39.3 108,738 43.3 111,702 45.1 113,903 45.9 112,561 45.7 Colorado 2,721 4.3 3,132 4.8 3,240 5.2 R 3,118 5.4 3,457 6.2 Connecticut 10,252 28.5 11,032 29.3 12,324 31.0 14,068 34.6 15,519 34.6 Delaware 2,178 25.2 2,611 29.4 5,438 46.5 6,117 50.2 4,879 46.6 District of Columbia 15,703 81.4 15,110 82.1 15,550 83.1 15,507 83.6 14,029

349

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

State State Energy Data 2011: Consumption 11 Table C8. Transportation Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy Electrical System Energy Losses e Total Aviation Gasoline Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel b LPG c Lubricants Motor Gasoline d Residual Fuel Oil Total Alabama ............. 0.0 23.5 0.4 124.4 13.4 0.3 2.3 316.3 6.7 463.7 0.0 487.2 0.0 487.2 Alaska ................. 0.0 3.5 0.8 44.4 118.2 (s) 0.4 32.9 0.4 197.2 0.0 200.7 0.0 200.7 Arizona ............... 0.0 15.6 1.0 111.3 21.5 0.8 1.6 318.2 0.0 454.5 0.0 470.1 0.0 470.1 Arkansas ............. 0.0 11.5 0.4 99.7 5.9 0.4 2.0 171.3 0.0 279.8 (s) 291.2 (s) 291.2 California ............ 0.0 25.7 1.9 440.9 549.7 3.8 13.3 1,770.1 186.9 2,966.5 2.8 2,995.1 5.5 3,000.5 Colorado ............. 0.0 14.7 0.6 83.2 58.3 0.3

350

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table C6. Commercial Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Hydro- electric Power e Biomass Geothermal Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy g Electrical System Energy Losses h Total g Distillate Fuel Oil Kerosene LPG b Motor Gasoline c Residual Fuel Oil Total d Wood and Waste f Alabama ............. 0.0 25.5 7.0 (s) 2.7 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 75.9 112.4 144.8 257.2 Alaska ................. 9.4 16.9 10.1 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 9.7 48.0 20.2 68.2 Arizona ............... 0.0 33.1 6.8 (s) 1.5 0.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.5 (s) 100.7 143.2 202.3 345.5 Arkansas ............. 0.0 40.6 3.6 (s) 1.2 0.4 0.0 5.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 41.4 88.6 86.1 174.7 California ............ 0.0 250.9 47.9 0.1 8.7 1.4 0.0 58.1 (s) 17.4 0.7 418.9 746.2 809.9 1,556.1 Colorado ............. 3.2 57.6 5.9 (s) 2.9 0.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 1.2 0.2

351

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 24. Average price of natural gas delivered to consumers by state and sector, 2011 (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Alabama 15.09 100.0 12.37 78.9 5.56 23.4 11.45 4.36 Alaska 8.77 100.0 8.77 86.7 3.84 60.8 -- 5.04 Arizona 15.04 100.0 9.99 87.8 6.86 24.2 7.73 5.02 Arkansas 11.46 100.0 8.90 51.5 7.44 2.1 -- 4.73 California 9.93 98.3 8.28 54.3 7.04 4.5 7.32 4.71 Colorado 8.25 100.0 7.84 93.8 6.42 7.6 9.56 4.97 Connecticut 13.83 96.8 8.48 65.4 9.16 31.4 18.59 5.09 Delaware 15.38 100.0 13.58 53.4 11.69 1.6 28.76 W District of Columbia 13.06 75.0 12.24 16.9 -- -- 4.17 -- Florida 18.16 98.1 11.11 39.8 8.07 3.0 4.93 5.86 Georgia 15.72 100.0 10.51 100.0 5.90 18.2 5.57 4.72 Hawaii 55.28 100.0 45.58

352

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C7. Industrial Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Hydro- electric power e Biomass Geo- thermal Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy h,i Electrical System Energy Losses j Total h,i Distillate Fuel Oil LPG b Motor Gasoline c Residual Fuel Oil Other d Total Wood and Waste f Losses and Co- products g Alabama ............. 65.0 179.1 23.9 3.7 3.3 6.7 46.3 83.9 0.0 147.2 0.0 (s) 115.1 590.4 219.5 810.0 Alaska ................. 0.1 253.8 19.2 0.1 1.0 0.0 27.1 47.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.5 306.0 9.4 315.4 Arizona ............... 10.0 22.0 33.2 1.4 4.6 (s) 18.4 57.6 0.0 1.4 3.1 0.2 42.1 136.5 84.7 221.2 Arkansas ............. 5.6 93.1 31.1 2.6 4.0 0.1 17.4 55.1 0.0 72.7 0.0 (s) 58.0 284.5 120.5 405.0 California ............ 35.6 767.4 77.2 23.9 29.6 (s) 312.5

353

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C5. Residential Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal a Natural Gas b Petroleum Biomass Geothermal Solar/PV e Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy f Electrical System Energy Losses g Total f Distillate Fuel Oil Kerosene LPG c Total Wood d Alabama ............. 0.0 37.2 0.1 0.1 6.0 6.2 6.0 0.1 0.2 112.6 162.2 214.7 376.9 Alaska ................. 0.0 20.5 8.1 0.1 0.5 8.8 1.9 0.1 (s) 7.3 38.6 15.1 53.7 Arizona ............... 0.0 39.1 (s) (s) 5.5 5.5 2.6 (s) 7.9 112.9 168.0 226.8 394.7 Arkansas ............. 0.0 34.2 0.1 (s) 5.2 5.3 8.6 0.7 0.2 64.1 113.1 133.2 246.3 California ............ 0.0 522.4 0.6 0.6 30.9 32.2 33.3 0.2 43.2 301.6 932.9 583.1 1,516.1 Colorado ............. 0.0 134.2 0.1 (s) 12.3 12.4 8.3 0.2 0.7 62.4 216.5 136.5 353.0 Connecticut ......... 0.0 46.0 59.6

354

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

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

7 7 Table 24. Average price of natural gas delivered to consumers by state and sector, 2012 (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Alabama 16.20 100.0 12.55 76.2 4.35 22.1 17.99 3.09 Alaska 8.47 100.0 8.09 94.9 5.11 100.0 -- 4.32 Arizona 15.75 100.0 9.35 86.6 5.78 21.4 13.19 3.51 Arkansas 11.82 100.0 7.99 40.2 6.38 1.9 9.04 3.19 California 9.14 97.5 7.05 50.0 5.77 4.2 7.01 3.68 Colorado 8.31 100.0 7.58 92.2 5.79 6.8 11.65 W Connecticut 14.17 96.7 8.40 65.1 8.83 32.3 13.70 3.99 Delaware 15.24 100.0 13.31 43.7 11.61 0.3 30.97 -- District of Columbia 12.10 73.9 11.19 17.9 -- -- 9.38 -- Florida 18.31 97.7 10.41 37.0 6.96 2.7 9.83 4.80 Georgia 16.23 100.0 9.74 100.0 4.60 20.0 14.51 3.40 Hawaii 52.86 100.0 47.03

355

RSE Table 7.5 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.5  

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

5 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.5;" " Unit: Percents." " ",," "," ",," "," " "Economic",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and" "Characteristic(a)","Electricity","Fuel...

356

RSE Table 10.12 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.12  

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

2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.12;" " Unit: Percents." ,,"LPG",,,"Alternative Energy Sources(b)" ,,,"Coal Coke" "NAICS"," ","Total"," ","Not","Electricity","Natural...

357

Order Module--DOE O 151.1C, COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM |  

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

151.1C, COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 151.1C, COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Order Module--DOE O 151.1C, COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The familiar level of this module is designed to summarize the basic information in DOE O 151.1C, Comprehensive Emergency Management System. This module is divided into two sections. in the first section, we will discuss the objectives and responsibilities of DOE O 151.1C, Comprehensive Emergency Management System. In the second section, we will discuss the requirements included in chapters III through XI in the Order. The information provided will meet the relevant requirements in the following DOE Functional Area Qualification Standards: DOE-STD-1177-2004, Emergency Management DOE-STD-1151-2002, Facility Representative DOE-STD-1137-2007, Fire Protection Engineering

358

DOE Order Self Study Modules - DOE O 151.1C Comprehensive Emergency Management System  

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

O 151.1C O 151.1C COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION SERVICE CENTER Change No: 3 DOE O 151.1C Level: Familiar Date: 12/1/08 1 DOE O 151.1C COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FAMILIAR LEVEL _________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTIVES Given the familiar level of this module and the resources listed below, you will be able to: 1. List the objectives of DOE O 151.1C, Comprehensive Emergency Management System (EMS); 2. Describe the responsibilities assigned to the following positions or groups for implementation and management of the EMS: Cognizant/field element managers Site/facility managers 3. State the purpose of a hazard survey; 4. List three phases of the planning process that should be addressed in an

359

Qualified Energy Conservation Bond State-by-State Summary Tables  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Provides a list of qualified energy conservation bond state summary tables. Author: Energy Programs Consortium

360

Residential Transportation Historical Data Tables for 1983-2001  

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

RTECS Historical Data Tables RTECS Historical Data Tables Residential Transportation Historical Data Tables Released: May 2008 Below are historical data tables from the Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey (RTECS) and Household Vehicles Energy Use: Latest Data & Trends report. These tables cover the trends in energy consumption for household transportation throughout the survey years. The data focus on several important indicators of demand for transportation: number and type of vehicles per household; vehicle-miles traveled per household and per vehicle; fuel consumption; fuel expenditures; and fuel economy. Excel PDF Trends in Households & Vehicles Table 1. Number of Households with Vehicles excel pdf Table 2. Percent of Households with Vehicles excel pdf

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


361

TABLE OF CONTENTS Organizational Profile i  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

83%. MESA leads its industry in quality and performance improvement. As the only ISO 9001 certified.1b. Operational Process Effectiveness Results 34 7.1c. Strategy Implementation Results 37 7.2a

Magee, Joseph W.

362

EIA - Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables 1990-2030  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2006 Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 13 complete) Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table C1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region, Low Economic Growth Case Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table C2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel, Low Economic Growth Case

363

EIA - Appendix A - Reference Case Projection Tables 1990-2030  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Tables (1990-2030) Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table A1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table A2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

364

EIA - Appendix D - High Price Case Projections Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

High Price Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) High Price Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) International Energy Outlook 2010 High Oil Price Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 12 complete) High Oil Price Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Appendix D. High Oil Price Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table D1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table D1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table D2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table D2. World total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

365

EIA - Appendix A - Reference Case Projection Tables 1990-2030  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2008 Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table A1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table A2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

366

EIA - International Energy Outlook 2007-Reference Case Projection Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2007 Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table A1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table A2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

367

RSE Table 3.5 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.5  

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

5 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.5;" 5 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.5;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," "," "," "," "," "," ","Waste",," " " "," "," ","Blast"," "," ","Pulping Liquor"," ","Oils/Tars" "NAICS"," "," ","Furnace/Coke","Waste","Petroleum","or","Wood Chips,","and Waste" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Oven Gases","Gas","Coke","Black Liquor","Bark","Materials"

368

Shake Table for Calibration of Velocity Pickups  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A Shake Table was developed and built by the Engineering Research Institute to calibrate low?frequency (0 to 200 cps) velocity pickups. The platform that supports the pickup to be tested is 6 in. in diameter and will support a load of approximately 30 lb. This makes the use of a table limited by force it can deliver except at very low frequencies. The table will operate with a 10 lb load to a frequency of 150 cps. The platform displacement is 0.125 in. peak?to?peak. The platform and its load are supported by air bellows. This is an improvement over a spring support due to the fact that it has greater damping and it is more easily adjusted to different loads. The adjustment consists of just putting more air in the bellows. The table is driven by a dc push?pull power amplifier. This delivers a current to a tapped coil on the Shake Table that is located in a magnetic field. The field is set up by a coil energized by 24 volts. The power amplifier can be driven by any convenient source delivering about 1 volt. (Parts of this research were supported by Tri?service Contract No. DA?36?039?sc?52654.)

J. W. Wescott; J. H. Prout; W. H. Follett

1957-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

369

EIA - Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Supplemental Tables to the AEO 2008 Supplemental Tables to the AEO 2008 Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 The AEO Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO2008) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 2005 to 2030. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2008, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2008 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seventeen tables are presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2008 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Projections for 2007 and 2008 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term projections and are based on more current information than the AEO.

370

EIA - High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables 1990-2030  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2006 High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 13 complete) High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table B1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region, High Economic Growth Case High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

371

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90  

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

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90 Print The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90 Print The previously undetected fullerene D5h(1)-C90-with a distinct nanotubular shape-has been isolated as the major C90 isomer produced from Sm2O3-doped graphite rods and structurally identified by single-crystal x-ray diffraction. Fullerenes are well-defined molecules that consist of closed cages of carbon atoms and distinct inside and outside surfaces. They tend to form very small crystals; consequently, high-resolution data was collected using small-molecule crystallography at ALS Beamline 11.3.1. The discovery of nanotubular D5h(1)-C90, which is a fullerene with 90 carbon atoms and D5h symmetry, opens a bridge between molecular fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. Fullerenes Mimicking Nanotubes

372

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90  

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

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90 Print The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90 Print The previously undetected fullerene D5h(1)-C90-with a distinct nanotubular shape-has been isolated as the major C90 isomer produced from Sm2O3-doped graphite rods and structurally identified by single-crystal x-ray diffraction. Fullerenes are well-defined molecules that consist of closed cages of carbon atoms and distinct inside and outside surfaces. They tend to form very small crystals; consequently, high-resolution data was collected using small-molecule crystallography at ALS Beamline 11.3.1. The discovery of nanotubular D5h(1)-C90, which is a fullerene with 90 carbon atoms and D5h symmetry, opens a bridge between molecular fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. Fullerenes Mimicking Nanotubes

373

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90  

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

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90 Print The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90 Print The previously undetected fullerene D5h(1)-C90-with a distinct nanotubular shape-has been isolated as the major C90 isomer produced from Sm2O3-doped graphite rods and structurally identified by single-crystal x-ray diffraction. Fullerenes are well-defined molecules that consist of closed cages of carbon atoms and distinct inside and outside surfaces. They tend to form very small crystals; consequently, high-resolution data was collected using small-molecule crystallography at ALS Beamline 11.3.1. The discovery of nanotubular D5h(1)-C90, which is a fullerene with 90 carbon atoms and D5h symmetry, opens a bridge between molecular fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. Fullerenes Mimicking Nanotubes

374

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90  

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

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90 Print The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90 Print The previously undetected fullerene D5h(1)-C90-with a distinct nanotubular shape-has been isolated as the major C90 isomer produced from Sm2O3-doped graphite rods and structurally identified by single-crystal x-ray diffraction. Fullerenes are well-defined molecules that consist of closed cages of carbon atoms and distinct inside and outside surfaces. They tend to form very small crystals; consequently, high-resolution data was collected using small-molecule crystallography at ALS Beamline 11.3.1. The discovery of nanotubular D5h(1)-C90, which is a fullerene with 90 carbon atoms and D5h symmetry, opens a bridge between molecular fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. Fullerenes Mimicking Nanotubes

375

DOE Order Self Study Modules - DOE G 441.1-1C Radiation Protection Programs Guide  

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

41.1-1C 41.1-1C RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAMS GUIDE NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION LEARNING AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Change No: 1 DOE G 441.1-1C Level: Familiar Date: 12/1/08 1 DOE G 441.1-1C, RADIATION PROTECTION PROGRAMS GUIDE FAMILIAR LEVEL _________________________________________________________________________ OBJECTIVES Given the familiar level of this module and the resources listed below, you will be able to 1. Match radiation protection-related terms to their definitions; 2. Discuss the elements that should be taken into consideration to determine the likelihood of an individual receiving a dose in excess of a regulatory monitoring threshold; 3. Give three examples of criteria that should trigger a formal as-low-as-is-

376

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90  

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

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90 Print The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90 Print The previously undetected fullerene D5h(1)-C90-with a distinct nanotubular shape-has been isolated as the major C90 isomer produced from Sm2O3-doped graphite rods and structurally identified by single-crystal x-ray diffraction. Fullerenes are well-defined molecules that consist of closed cages of carbon atoms and distinct inside and outside surfaces. They tend to form very small crystals; consequently, high-resolution data was collected using small-molecule crystallography at ALS Beamline 11.3.1. The discovery of nanotubular D5h(1)-C90, which is a fullerene with 90 carbon atoms and D5h symmetry, opens a bridge between molecular fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. Fullerenes Mimicking Nanotubes

377

Order Module--DOE O 460.1C, PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, DOE O  

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

O 460.1C, PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, O 460.1C, PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, DOE O 460.2A, DEPARTMENTAL MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION AND PACKAGING MANAGEMENT Order Module--DOE O 460.1C, PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION SAFETY, DOE O 460.2A, DEPARTMENTAL MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION AND PACKAGING MANAGEMENT "The familiar level of this module is divided into two sections. The objectives and requirements of DOE O 460.1C and DOE O 460.2A will be discussed in the first and second sections, respectively. Several examples and practices throughout the module are provided to help familiarize you with the material. The practices will also help prepare you for the criterion test. Before continuing, you should obtain a copy of the Orders and implementation guides and manuals for this module. Copies of the Orders are available on the internet

378

Colorado - Colo. Const. Art. IX Sec. 10(1)(c) | Open Energy Informatio...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- ConstitutionConstitution: Colorado - Colo. Const. Art. IX Sec. 10(1)(c)Legal Abstract Pursuant to this section the Land...

379

Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Design Guide for use with DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety  

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

This Guide provides an acceptable approach for safety design of DOE hazard category 1, 2 and 3 nuclear facilities for satisfying the requirements of DOE O 420.1C. Cancels DOE G 420.1-1.

2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

380

The Surprising Appearance of Nanotubular Fullerene D5h(1)-C90  

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

carbon atoms and D5h symmetry, opens a bridge between molecular fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. Fullerenes Mimicking Nanotubes The nanotubular fullerene D5h(1)-C90 has...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


381

Applying DOE O 414.1C and NQA-1 Requirements to ISM Software...  

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

More Documents & Publications DOE G 414.1-4, Safety Software Guide for Use with 10 CFR 830 Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance...

382

Information on DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety | Department of...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

1C Crosswalk Matrix Roll-out Briefing Slides Contact Pranab Guha | Phone: 301-903-7089 Garrett Smith, Director | Phone: 301-903-7440 Jim O'Brien, Director | Phone: 301-903-3331...

383

FY 2013 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Summary Control Table by Appropriation Summary Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Current Enacted Congressional Approp. Approp. * Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy......................................... 1,771,721 1,809,638 2,337,000 +527,362 +29.1% Electricity delivery and energy reliability.......................................... 138,170 139,103 143,015 +3,912 +2.8% Nuclear energy................................................................................ 717,817 765,391 770,445 +5,054 +0.7% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology..................................................................

384

Particle Data Group - 2012 Reviews, Tables, Plots  

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

Downloadable figures are available for these reviews. Complete list of Reviews in the Particle Listings.. Categories: Constants, Units, Atomic and Nuclear Properties Physical Constants (rev.) Astrophysical Constants International System of units (SI) Periodic table of the elements (rev.) Electronic structure of the elements (rev.) Atomic and nuclear properties of materials PDF / Interactive Electromagnetic relations Naming scheme for hadrons Collapse table Standard Model and Related Topics Quantum Chromodynamics (rev.) Electroweak model and constraints on new physics (rev.) Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa quark-mixing matrix (rev.) CP violation (rev.) Neutrino mass, mixing, and oscillations (rev.) Quark model (rev.) Grand Unified Theories (rev.) Heavy-Quark and Soft-Collinear Effective Theory (new)

385

FY 2009 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Control Table by Appropriation Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Current Current Congressional Op. Plan Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy.......................... -- 1,722,407 1,255,393 -467,014 -27.1% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................... -- 138,556 134,000 -4,556 -3.3% Nuclear energy.................................................................. -- 961,665 853,644 -108,021 -11.2% Legacy management........................................................ -- 33,872 -- -33,872 -100.0% Energy supply and Conservation...................................... 2,145,149 -- -- -- -- Fossil energy programs

386

EIA - Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Data Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2013 (See release cycle changes) | correction | full 2013 (See release cycle changes) | correction | full report Overview Data Reference Case Side Cases Interactive Table Viewer Topics Source Oil/Liquids Natural Gas Coal Electricity Renewable/Alternative Nuclear Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Energy Demand Other Emissions Prices Macroeconomic International Efficiency Publication Chapter Market Trends Issues in Focus Legislation & Regulations Comparison Appendices View All Filter By Source Oil Natural Gas Coal Electricity Renewable/Alternative Nuclear Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Other Topics Emissions Prices Macroeconomic International Data TablesAll Tables Reference case summary & detailed tables... + EXPAND ALL Summary Case Tables additional formats Table 1. Total Energy Supply, Disposition, and Price Summary XLS

387

Data:1c259011-e9ab-4f65-8cf3-1c4c8debdb73 | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

1-e9ab-4f65-8cf3-1c4c8debdb73 1-e9ab-4f65-8cf3-1c4c8debdb73 No revision has been approved for this page. It is currently under review by our subject matter experts. Jump to: navigation, search Loading... 1. Basic Information 2. Demand 3. Energy << Previous 1 2 3 Next >> Basic Information Utility name: Northern Virginia Elec Coop Effective date: 2010/10/01 End date if known: Rate name: Schedule OL-1, Outdoor Lighting, High-Pressure Sodium 250W Sector: Lighting Description: Available throughout the service territory of the Cooperative to any consumer for street, highway, arca or security lighting service subject to the ůled Terms and Conditions of the Cooperative. Source or reference: ISU Documents Source Parent: Comments Applicability Demand (kW) Minimum (kW): Maximum (kW): History (months):

388

ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

#12;ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents Web: http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu Colorado Climate Winter 2001-2002 Vol. 3, No. 1 Why Is the Park Range Colorado's Snowfall Capital? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 The Cold-Land Processes Field Experiment: North-Central Colorado

389

ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

#12;ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents An Unusually Heavy Snowfall in North Central Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A Brief History of Colorado's Most Notable Snowstorms" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Colorado Climate Water Year 2003 Vol. 4, No. 1-4 If you have a photo or slide that your would like

390

Student Mobile Device Survey Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

CiCS. Student Mobile Device Survey 2011 Table of Contents Section Number Subject Page 1 With little information and supporting evidence on student ownership and usage of mobile devices at the University of Sheffield, making decisions on our services and support for mobile devices has been based

Martin, Stephen John

391

Table of Contents Dean's Seminar 1  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

-ray Training and Technique Replica) peeking out from a dental chair, radiology resembles more of a fun house than a diagnostic screening room. "It is a weird area," admitted Kelly Wiss, lead dental radiologyTable of Contents Dean's Seminar 1 Radiology 2 IPE Opportunity 3 Recent Photos 4 Short Takes *The

Chapman, Michael S.

392

Table of Contents Division Organization 2  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) 12 Smart Grid Cyber Security 13 Supply Chain Risk Security and Forensics 33 NIST Cloud Computing Project 34 Policy Machine 35 Security for Grid#12;2002 Table of Contents Welcome 1 Division Organization 2 The Computer Security Division

393

STUDENT HANDBOOK Table of Contents Page Number  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

STUDENT HANDBOOK Campus #12;Table of Contents Page Number Welcome 1 The School 1 Mission Statement Student Resources 8 Financial Aid and Funding Sources Writing Supports 9 Special Needs Computers Libraries RefWorks 10 Student Services 11 Administrative Information 14 Student ID, and Email Accounts U of R

Saskatchewan, University of

394

FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION Table Of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

EM 385-1-1 XX Sep 13 i Section 9 FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION Table Of Contents Section: Page 09 and Melting Kettles.............................9-25 09.F First response Fire Protection FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION 09.A GENERAL 09.A.01 A fire prevention plan shall be written for all

US Army Corps of Engineers

395

CONTENTDM ADVANCED SEARCH TUTORIAL Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1 CONTENTDM ADVANCED SEARCH TUTORIAL Table of Contents 1. Accessing the Advanced Search Page 1 2. Navigating the Advanced Search Page 3 3. Selecting your collection to search Advanced Search from the right navigation menu. 2 This will take you into the CONTENTdm database

O'Laughlin, Jay

396

Microsoft Word - table_B2.doc  

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

8 Table B2. Thermal conversion factors and data, 2009-2013 Conversion Factor (Btu per cubic foot) Production Marketed 1,101 1,098 1,142 R 1,091 1,100 NGPL Production 2,627 2,598...

397

Highperformance routingtable lookup  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...is a trie to which trie completion is applied. Three levels...in a hit and, thus, an index into the next hop table, or in a miss and, thus, an index into an array of chunks...In the rst case, an index to an array of chunks of...

2000-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

398

Table 24. Refining Industry Energy Consumption  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

- Corrections to Tables 24 to 32 - Corrections to Tables 24 to 32 Table 24. Refining Industry Energy Consumption 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2002- 2025 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 4/ (million metric tons) 190.4 185.7 188.0 191.3 207.3 215.6 220.0 222.8 225.1 226.3 228.0 230.7 234.1 237.5 238.5 239.4 239.4 238.6 240.6 240.5 242.2 244.2 245.9 246.3 246.6 1.2% Table 25. Food Industry Energy Consumption 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2002- 2025 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 3/ (million metric tons) 87.8 89.4 87.5 87.8 89.2 90.2 90.9 91.4 92.2 93.5 94.5 95.7 96.7 97.7 98.6 99.6 100.8 101.9 102.9 104.1 105.4 107.0 108.7 110.3 112.1 1.0% Table 26. Paper Industry Energy Consumption 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

399

EIA - Appendix E-Low Price Case Projections Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

10 > Low Price Case Projections (2005-2035) 10 > Low Price Case Projections (2005-2035) International Energy Outlook 2010 Low Oil Price Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) Formats Table Data Titles (1 to 12 complete) Low Oil Price Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Appendix E. Low Oil Price Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table E1 World Total Energy Consumption by Region Table E1. World Total Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table E2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table E2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

400

Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2003  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook 2003 Annual Energy Outlook 2003 Assumptions to the AEO2003 Nattional Energy Modeling System/Annual Energy Outlook 2003 Conference E-Mail Subscription Lists Forecasts Home Page Supplement Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2003 AEO Supplement Reference Case Forecast (2000-2025) - (HTML) Table 1. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (New England) Table 2. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Middle Atlantic) Table 3. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East North Central) Table 4. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West North Central) Table 5. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (South Atlantic) Table 6. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East South Central) Table 7. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West South Central)

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


401

Petroleum Products Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

99.2 - 105.3 See footnotes at end of table. 56 Energy Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 2000 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD...

402

Petroleum Products Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

66.6 - 72.3 See footnotes at end of table. 56 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD...

403

Petroleum Products Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

133.6 - 276.4 See footnotes at end of table. 220 Energy Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 2000 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type,...

404

Petroleum Products Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

201.3 - 453.3 See footnotes at end of table. 262 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type,...

405

Fusion Tables : new ways to collaborate on structured data  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Fusion Tables allows data collaborators to create, merge, navigate and set access control permissions on structured data. This thesis focuses on the collaboration tools that were added to Googles Fusion Tables. The ...

Kidon, Jonathan Goldberg

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

406

RSE Table 3.2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.2  

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

2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.2;" 2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.2;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," " "NAICS"," "," ","Net","Residual","Distillate","Natural","LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,5,25,20,5,27,6,0,10

407

RSE Table 5.2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.2  

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

2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.2;" 2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.2;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," ","Distillate"," "," ",," " " "," ",,,,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" "NAICS"," "," ","Net","Residual","and","Natural ","LPG and","(excluding Coal"," " "Code(a)","End Use","Total","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coke and Breeze)","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" " 311 - 339","ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES"

408

RSE Table 7.3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.3  

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

3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.3;" 3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.3;" " Unit: Percents." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,"Natural Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components" " "," ",,,"Electricity",,,"Natural Gas",,,"Steam",," " " "," ",,"Electricity","from Sources",,"Natural Gas","from Sources",,"Steam","from Sources" " "," ","Electricity","from Local","Other than","Natural Gas","from Local","Other than","Steam","from Local","Other than"

409

RSE Table 5.4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.4  

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

4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.4;" 4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.4;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ",," ","Distillate"," "," " " "," ","Net Demand",,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" "NAICS"," ","for ","Residual","and","Natural ","LPG and","(excluding Coal" "Code(a)","End Use","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coke and Breeze)" ,,"Total United States" " 311 - 339","ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES" ,"TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION",2,3,6,2,3,9

410

RSE Table 7.9 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.9  

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

9 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.9;" 9 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.9;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," " "NAICS"," "," ",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Electricity","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(e)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,4,24,21,5,23,7,0,20

411

RSE Table 1.2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 1.2  

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

2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 1.2;" 2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 1.2;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," " " "," "," ",," "," ",," "," ",," ","Shipments" "NAICS"," ",,"Net","Residual","Distillate","Natural","LPG and",,"Coke and"," ","of Energy Sources" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total(b)","Electricity(c)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(d)","Gas(e)","NGL(f)","Coal","Breeze","Other(g)","Produced Onsite(h)"

412

RSE Table 7.7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.7  

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

7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.7;" 7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.7;" " Unit: Percents." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,"Natural Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components" " "," ",,,,,,,,,,," " " "," ",,,"Electricity",,,"Natural Gas",,,"Steam" " "," ",,"Electricity","from Sources",,"Natural Gas","from Sources",,"Steam","from Sources" "NAICS"," ","Electricity","from Local","Other than","Natural Gas","from Local","Other than","Steam","from Local","Other than"

413

University of Hawaii TABLE OF CONTENTS  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Spills 3-1 C. Injuries to Personnel 3-2 D. Fires Involving Radioactive Materials 3-2 Part IV: Waste Shipments App. A-11 Radioactive Waste Pickup Form Instructions App. A-12 Radioactive Waste Pickup Request Instructions for Cruise Radioactive Waste App. A-16 Radioactive Waste Pick-Up Request form for R/V cruises App

Browder, Tom

414

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, January/February 1995  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Environmental Regulatory Update Table provides information on regulatory initiatives impacting environmental, health, and safety management responsibilities. the table is updated bi-monthly with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Bock, R.E.; Mayer, S.J.; Salk, M.S.

1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

415

Microsoft Word - o481.1c FinalAdminChg1 3-14-11  

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

81.1C Chg. 1 81.1C Chg. 1 03-14-11 AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: INITIATED BY: http://www.directives.doe.gov Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE TO DOE O 481.1C, WORK FOR OTHERS (NON-DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FUNDED WORK) LOCATION OF CHANGES: Page Paragraph Changed To 7 5.f(1) "intelligence and intelligence-related WFO projects and intelligence SAPs." "intelligence and intelligence- related work and intelligence SAPs." 7 5.f(2) "intelligence-related WFO projects" "intelligence and intelligence- related work" 7 5.f(3) "intelligence-related WFO projects" "intelligence and intelligence- related work" 7 5.f(4) "intelligence-related WFO" "intelligence and intelligence-

416

Un exemple de conversion d'une table de production en volume en tables de production en biomasse  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Un exemple de conversion d'une table de production en volume en tables de production en biomasse secteur ligérien, proposée par PARD? en 1962, est convertie en quatre tables de production en biomasse correspondant chacune à une partie de l'arbre ou à l'arbre entier, biomasse foliaire exclue. La conversion est

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

417

Direct Optical Observation of the Subsidiary X1c Conduction Band and Its Donor Levels in InP  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Zero-phonon and phonon-assisted optical transitions from the ?1c conduction band to the subsidiary X1c conduction band and its donor levels have been observed in InP at 8K. The X1c-?1c interband energy is measured at 9605 meV, and the binding energies of donors associated with the subsidiary X1c band are found to be 106 and 175 meV (5 meV) for Te and Si, respectively.

A. Onton; Y. Yacoby; R. J. Chicotka

1972-04-10T23:59:59.000Z

418

FY 2010 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Control Table by Appropriation Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Current Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Recovery Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy.......................................... 1,704,112 2,178,540 16,800,000 2,318,602 +140,062 +6.4% Electricity delivery and energy reliability............................................ 136,170 137,000 4,500,000 208,008 +71,008 +51.8% Nuclear energy................................................................................... 960,903 792,000 -- 761,274 -30,726 -3.9% Legacy management.......................................................................... 33,872 -- -- --

419

FY 2012 Control Table by Organization  

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

2 Summary Control Table by Organization 2 Summary Control Table by Organization (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Current Congressional Annualized Congressional Approp. Request CR Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Organization Department Of Energy By Organization National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities * ............................................................................. 6,386,371 7,008,835 7,008,835 7,629,716 +620,881 +8.9% Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation * ...................................................... 2,131,382 2,687,167 2,136,709 2,549,492 -137,675 -5.1% Naval Reactors * ................................................................................... 945,133 1,070,486 945,133 1,153,662 +83,176 +7.8% Office of the Administrator * ................................................................. 410,754 448,267 410,754 450,060

420

Computers in Commercial Buildings - Table 2  

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

EIA Home > Commercial Home > Data Reports > EIA Home > Commercial Home > Data Reports > Computers in Commercial Buildings >Table 2 Table 2. Photocopiers in Commercial Buildings, 1999 Number of Buildings (thousand) Total Floorspace (million square feet) Number of Employees (thousand) Total Photocopiers (thousand) Photocopiers per Million Square Feet Photocopiers per Thousand Employees All Buildings 4,657 67,338 81,852 4,934 73 60 Principal Building Activity Education 327 8,651 8,927 433 50 48 Food Sales 174 994 980 41 42 42 Food Service 349 1,851 4,031 Q Q 26 Health Care 127 2,918 6,219 401 138 65 Inpatient 11 1,865 3,350 187 100 56 Outpatient 116 1,053 2,869 214 204 75 Lodging 153 4,521 2,356 78 17 33 Mercantile 667 10,398 11,384 526 51 46

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


421

FY 2011 Statistical Table by Appropriation  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Current Current Current Congressional Approp. Recovery Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy........................................... 2,156,865 16,771,907 2,242,500 2,355,473 +112,973 +5.0% Electricity delivery and energy reliability............................................. 134,629 4,495,712 171,982 185,930 +13,948 +8.1% Nuclear energy................................................................................... 791,444 0 786,637 824,052 +37,415 +4.8% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology..................................................................... 0 0 0 0

422

FY 2007 Control Table by Organization  

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

Control Table by Organization Control Table by Organization (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Organization National Security Weapons................................................................................. 6,625,542 6,369,597 6,407,889 +38,292 +0.6% Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.......................................... 1,507,966 1,614,839 1,726,213 +111,374 +6.9% Naval Reactors........................................................................ 801,437 781,605 795,133 +13,528 +1.7% Office of the Administrator...................................................... 363,350 338,450 386,576 +48,126 +14.2% Total, National Nuclear Security Administration........................ 9,298,295 9,104,491

423

FY 2009 Control Table by Organization  

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

9 Control Table by Organization 9 Control Table by Organization (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Current Current Congressional Op. Plan Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Organization National Security Weapons................................................................................. 6,258,583 6,297,466 6,618,079 +320,613 +5.1% Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................................... 1,824,202 1,335,996 1,247,048 -88,948 -6.7% Naval Reactors....................................................................... 781,800 774,686 828,054 +53,368 +6.9% Office of the Administrator...................................................... 358,291 402,137 404,081 +1,944 +0.5% Total, National Nuclear Security Administration.......................

424

FY 2011 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Summary Control Table by Appropriation Summary Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Current Current Current Congressional Approp. Recovery Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy........................................... 2,156,865 16,771,907 2,242,500 2,355,473 +112,973 +5.0% Electricity delivery and energy reliability............................................. 134,629 4,495,712 171,982 185,930 +13,948 +8.1% Nuclear energy................................................................................... 791,444 0 786,637 824,052 +37,415 +4.8% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology..................................................................... 0 0 0 0

425

FY 2008 Control Table by Appriopriation  

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

Control Table by Appropriation Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Current Congressional Congressional Approp. Request Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply and Conservation..................................... 1,812,397 1,923,361 2,187,943 +264,582 +13.8% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology................................................... -20,000 -- -58,000 -58,000 N/A Fossil energy research and development..................... 580,669 469,686 566,801 +97,115 +20.7% Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves........................ 21,285 18,810 17,301 -1,509 -8.0% Elk Hills school lands fund............................................

426

FY 2013 Control Table by Organization  

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

3 Summary Control Table by Organization 3 Summary Control Table by Organization (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Current Enacted Congressional Approp. Approp. * Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Organization Department Of Energy By Organization National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities.............................................................................. 6,865,775 7,214,120 7,577,341 +363,221 +5.0% Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................................................ 2,281,371 2,295,880 2,458,631 +162,751 +7.1% Naval Reactors.................................................................................... 985,526 1,080,000 1,088,635 +8,635 +0.8% Office of the Administrator................................................................... 393,293 410,000 411,279

427

FY 2011 Control Table by Organization  

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

1 Summary Control Table by Organization 1 Summary Control Table by Organization (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Current Current Current Congressional Approp. Recovery Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Organization National Security Weapons................................................................................................. 6,410,000 0 6,384,431 7,008,835 +624,404 +9.8% Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................................................... 1,545,071 0 2,136,709 2,687,167 +550,458 +25.8% Naval Reactors........................................................................................ 828,054 0 945,133 1,070,486 +125,353 +13.3% Office of the Administrator....................................................................... 439,190 0 410,754 448,267

428

FY 2007 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Control Table by Appropriation Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply and Conservation......................................... 1,801,815 1,812,627 1,923,361 +110,734 +6.1% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology....................................................... -160,000 -20,000 -- +20,000 +100.0% Fossil energy research and development........................ 560,852 592,014 469,686 -122,328 -20.7% Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves........................... 17,750 21,285 18,810 -2,475 -11.6% Elk Hills school lands fund................................................

429

EIA - Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2012 Data Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 Release Date: June 25, 2012 | Next Early Release Date: December 5, 2012 | Report Number: DOE/EIA-0383(2012) Overview Data Reference Case Side Cases Interactive Table Viewer Topics Source Oil/Liquids Natural Gas Coal Electricity Renewable/Alternative Nuclear Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Energy Demand Other Emissions Prices Macroeconomic International Efficiency Publication Chapter Executive Summary Market Trends Issues in Focus Legislation & Regulations Comparison Appendices View All Filter By Source Oil Natural Gas Coal Electricity Renewable/Alternative Nuclear Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Other Topics Emissions Prices Macroeconomic International Data TablesAll Tables Reference case summary & detailed tables... + EXPAND ALL Summary Case Tables Additional Formats

430

The 1993 atomic mass evaluation: (I) Atomic mass table  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper is the first of a series of four. In it, a table is given to replace the 1983 atomic mass table. The differences with the earlier table are briefly discussed and information is given of interest for the users of this table. Part II of this series gives values for several derived quantities (decay-, separation- and reaction energies), part III shows graphs of several of those quantities, and part IV gives a list of input data and full information on the used input data and on the procedures used in deriving the tables in the preceding parts.

G. Audi; A.H. Wapstra

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

431

Table of Contents for Desk Guide  

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

Real Estate Desk Guide Real Estate Desk Guide Revised May, 2013 U. S. Department of Energy - Real Estate Desk Guide Revised 2013 Real Estate Desk Guide Table of Contents Chapter 1-- Purpose of Desk Guide ........................................................................ 1 Chapter 2-- Introduction ......................................................................................... 3 Chapter 3-- Planning Policy .................................................................................... 7 Chapter 4-- Real Estate Function ......................................................................... 10 Chapter 5-- Acquisition of Interests in Real Property ........................................ 14 Chapter 6-- Acquisition by Lease ......................................................................... 34

432

Table of Contents for Desk Guide  

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

Real Estate Desk Guide Real Estate Desk Guide Revised May, 2013 U. S. Department of Energy - Real Estate Desk Guide Revised 2013 Real Estate Desk Guide Table of Contents Chapter 1-- Purpose of Desk Guide ........................................................................ 1 Chapter 2-- Introduction ......................................................................................... 3 Chapter 3-- Planning Policy .................................................................................... 7 Chapter 4-- Real Estate Function ......................................................................... 10 Chapter 5-- Acquisition of Interests in Real Property ........................................ 14 Chapter 6-- Acquisition by Lease ......................................................................... 34

433

Bake-Fiesta Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Cook-Off & Bake-Fiesta V??~ U??~ 2014 #12;Table of Contents 1. Registration 2. Set up/Check In 3. Cook-off Schedule 12. Frontier Fiesta Contact Information 13. Chili Addendum 14. Cook-off, Bake Fiesta in the Cook-Off and Bake Fiesta Forms Packet no later than February 15th , 2014, by 5 PM ­ NO EXCEPTIONS B

Azevedo, Ricardo

434

Tables of thermodynamic properties of sodium  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The thermodynamic properties of saturated sodium, superheated sodium, and subcooled sodium are tabulated as a function of temperature. The temperature ranges are 380 to 2508 K for saturated sodium, 500 to 2500 K for subcooled sodium, and 400 to 1600 K for superheated sodium. Tabulated thermodynamic properties are enthalpy, heat capacity, pressure, entropy, density, instantaneous thermal expansion coefficient, compressibility, and thermal pressure coefficient. Tables are given in SI units and cgs units.

Fink, J.K.

1982-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

435

EIA - Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Analysis > Supplemental Tables to the AEO 2009 Analysis > Supplemental Tables to the AEO 2009 Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 The Early Release for next year's Annual Energy Outlook will be presented at the John Hopkins Kenney Auditorium on December 14th The AEO Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (AEO2009) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 2006 to 2030. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2009, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2009 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and twenty-eight tables are presented.

436

CBECS 1993 - Federal Buildings Supplement Survey - Detailed Tables  

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

Publication > Detailed Tables Publication > Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Percent of FBSS Buildings and Floorspace by Selected Agencies, FY 1993 Percent of FBSS Buildings and Floorspace by Selected Agencies, FY 1993 Sources: Energy Information Administration, Energy Markets and End Use, 1993 Federal Buildings Supplemental Survey. Divider Line To View and/or Print Reports (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) - Download Adobe Acrobat Reader If you experience any difficulties, visit our Technical Frequently Asked Questions. Divider Line You have the option of downloading the entire set of tables or selected tables by data item. Full Set of Tables - Federal Buildings Supplemental Survey, 1993 (file size 770,290 bytes) pages: 123 Detailed Table Information (file size 45,044 bytes) pages: 7, includes:

437

MAURO NACINOVICH [1] C. Denson Hill and Mauro Nacinovich. Non completely solvable systems of  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

MAURO NACINOVICH References [1] C. Denson Hill and Mauro Nacinovich. Non completely solvable systems of complex first order pde's. arXiv:1111.1502v2 [math.AP], 2012. [2] Mauro Nacinovich and Egmont, Costantino Medori, and Mauro Nacinovich. Reductive com- pact homogeneous CR manifolds. arXiv:1106.2779v1

Nacinovich, Mauro

438

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding DOE Order 420.1C, Facility Safety  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding DOE Order 420.1C, Facility Safety, and its supporting directives, DOE?STD?1020?2012, Natural Phenomena Hazards Analysis and Design Criteria for DOE Facilities, and DOE?STD?1066?2012, Fire Protection

439

Proceedings of ICRC 2001: 1 c Copernicus Gesellschaft 2001 Status of the Milagro Gamma Ray Observatory  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Introduction The observation of high-energy gamma ray sources has helped us to gain a better understandingProceedings of ICRC 2001: 1 c Copernicus Gesellschaft 2001 ICRC 2001 Status of the Milagro Gamma ability to reject background and more accurately reconstruct the gamma-ray direction and energy

California at Santa Cruz, University of

440

EIA-Annual Energy Outlook 2010 - Low Oil PriceTables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Oil Price Tables (2007-2035) Oil Price Tables (2007-2035) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Main Low Oil Price Tables (2007- 2035) Table Title Formats Summary Low Oil Price Case Tables PDF Gif Year-by-Year Low Oil Price Case Tables Excel Gif Table 1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary Excel Gif Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Excel Gif Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source Excel Gif Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Excel Gif Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption Excel Gif Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption Excel Gif Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption Excel Gif Table 8. Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions Excel Gif Table 9. Electricity Generating Capacity

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


441

RSE Table 2.1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 2.1  

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

2.1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 2.1;" 2.1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 2.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," " " "," " "NAICS"," "," ","Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(e)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",31,0,91,35,0,0,0,47 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 31131," Sugar ",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 311421," Fruit and Vegetable Canning",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,8

442

RSE Table 10.10 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.10  

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

0 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.10;" 0 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.10;" " Unit: Percents." ,,"Coal",,,"Alternative Energy Sources(b)" "NAICS"," ","Total"," ","Not","Electricity","Natural","Distillate","Residual" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Consumed(c)","Switchable","Switchable","Receipts(d)","Gas","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil","LPG","Other(e)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",6,18,5,0,20,85,29,20,0 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 31131," Sugar ",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0

443

RSE Table 10.13 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.13  

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

3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.13;" 3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.13;" " Unit: Percents." ,,"LPG(b)",,,"Alternative Energy Sources(c)" ,,,,,,,,,,"Coal Coke" "NAICS"," ","Total"," ","Not","Electricity","Natural","Distillate","Residual",,"and" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Consumed(d)","Switchable","Switchable","Receipts(e)","Gas","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil","Coal","Breeze","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",8,17,8,20,21,43,34,35,37,29 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0

444

RSE Table 5.7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.7  

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

7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.7;" 7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.7;" " Unit: Percents." " ",,,"Distillate" " ","Net Demand",,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" " ","for ","Residual","and","Natural ","LPG and","(excluding Coal" "End Use","Electricity(a)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coke and Breeze)" ,"Total United States" "TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION",2,3,6,2,4,9 "Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel",6,4,10,2,10,13 " Conventional Boiler Use",12,5,14,2,10,8 " CHP and/or Cogeneration Process",4,2,6,3,2,19

445

RSE Table 4.1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 4.1  

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

1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 4.1;" 1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 4.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," " " "," " "NAICS"," "," ",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural","LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,5,25,20,5,27,6,0,17 311221," Wet Corn Milling",1,0,0,1,3,0,0,0,0 31131," Sugar ",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 311421," Fruit and Vegetable Canning",8,11,46,45,8,57,0,0,3

446

RSE Table 5.8 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.8  

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

8 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.8;" 8 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.8;" " Unit: Percents." " ",," ","Distillate"," "," " " ","Net Demand",,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" " ","for ","Residual","and","Natural ","LPG and","(excluding Coal" "End Use","Electricity(a)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coke and Breeze)" ,"Total United States" "TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION",2,3,6,2,3,9 "Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel",6,4,14,2,9,13 " Conventional Boiler Use",12,5,14,2,10,8 " CHP and/or Cogeneration Process",4,2,6,3,2,18

447

RSE Table 5.6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.6  

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

6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.6;" 6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.6;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ",," ","Distillate"," "," ",," " " ",,,,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" " "," ","Net","Residual","and","Natural","LPG and","(excluding Coal"," " "End Use","Total","Electricity(a)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coke and Breeze)","Other(e)" ,"Total United States" "TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION",2,2,3,6,2,3,9,2 "Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel",0,11,4,14,2,9,13,0

448

RSE Table 7.6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.6  

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

6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.6;" 6 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.6;" " Unit: Percents." " "," " " "," ",,,,,,,,," " "NAICS"," "," ",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and",,"Coke" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Electricity","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(e)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,5,25,20,5,27,6,0,20 311221," Wet Corn Milling",1,0,0,1,3,0,0,0,0 31131," Sugar ",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 311421," Fruit and Vegetable Canning",8,11,42,45,8,57,0,0,4

449

RSE Table 10.11 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.11  

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

1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.11;" 1 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.11;" " Unit: Percents." ,,"Coal(b)",,,"Alternative Energy Sources(c)" "NAICS"," ","Total"," ","Not","Electricity","Natural","Distillate","Residual" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Consumed(d)","Switchable","Switchable","Receipts(e)","Gas","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil","LPG","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",20,32,21,0,16,68,65,73,0 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 31131," Sugar ",0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0

450

PROPERTY TABLES AND CHARTS (SI UNITS) Table A1 Molar mass, gas constant, and  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

.0943 Carbon monoxide CO 28.011 0.2968 133 3.50 0.0930 Carbon tetrachloride CCl4 153.82 0.05405 556.4 4.56 0 Table A­20 Ideal-gas properties of carbon dioxide, CO2 Table A­21 Ideal-gas properties of carbon.1355 n-Butane C4H10 58.124 0.1430 425.2 3.80 0.2547 Carbon dioxide CO2 44.01 0.1889 304.2 7.39 0

Kostic, Milivoje M.

451

FY 2012 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

FY 2012 Summary Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Current Congressional Annualized Congressional Approp. Request CR Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy....................................... 2,216,392 2,355,473 2,242,500 3,200,053 +983,661 +44.4% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................................ 168,484 185,930 171,982 237,717 +69,233 +41.1% Nuclear energy............................................................................. 774,578 824,052 786,637 754,028

452

EIA-Annual Energy Outlook 2009 -Year-by-Year Reference Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Reference Case Tables (2006-2030) Reference Case Tables (2006-2030) Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030 Year-by-Year Reference Case Tables (2006-2030) Table Title Formats Summary Reference Case Tables PDF GIF Year-by-Year Reference Case Tables Year-by-Year Reference Case Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary XLS GIF Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source XLS GIF Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source XLS GIF Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption

453

Annual Energy Outlook 2009 - Year-by-Year High Economic Growth Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

High Macroeconomic Growth Case Tables (2006-2030) High Macroeconomic Growth Case Tables (2006-2030) Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030 XLS GIF Spreadsheets are provided in Excel Year-by-Year High Economic Growth Case Tables (2006-2030) Table Title Formats Summary High Economic Growth Case Tables PDF GIF High Economic Growth Case Tables XLS GIF Table 1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary XLS GIF Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source XLS GIF Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source XLS GIF Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption XLS GIF Table 8. Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions

454

Advanced Vehicle Technologies Awards Table | Department of Energy  

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

Vehicle Technologies Awards Table Vehicle Technologies Awards Table Advanced Vehicle Technologies Awards Table The table contains a listing of the applicants, their locations, the amounts of the awards, and description of each project. The sub-categories of the table include: Advanced fuels and lubricants Light-weighting materials Demonstration Project for a Multi-Material Light-Weight Prototype Vehicle Advanced cells and design technology for electric drive batteries Advanced power electronics and electric motor technology Solid State Thermoelectric Energy Conversion Devices Fleet Efficiency Advanced Vehicle Testing and Evaluation Microsoft Word - VTP $175 Advanced Vehicle Tech project descriptions draft v5 8-2-11 More Documents & Publications Advanced Vehicle Technologies Awards advanced vehicle technologies awards table

455

Supplement Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook - Errata  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2003 2003 There were two corrections to Table 117 in the Annual Energy Outlook 2003 Supplemental Tables: 1. The Total rows for all three table sections (Crude Oil, Light Refined Products, and Heavy Refined Products) were adjusted to accurately reflect the summation of the regions listed in the section. (Change made on 3/20/2003) 2. The final column, representing the growth rate from 2001 to 2025, for the Heavy Refined Products section was corrected. (Change made on 3/20/2003) 3. The regional sulfur dioxide emissions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2003 supplemental tables 60-72 were updated. Previously, this row in each table had contained the national total. (Change made on 4/7/03) 4. Supplement tables 60-73 were updated to correct Fuel Consumption for Petroleum, Natural Gas,

456

Data:273289df-3e81-4909-acbd-1c9508283eda | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

df-3e81-4909-acbd-1c9508283eda df-3e81-4909-acbd-1c9508283eda No revision has been approved for this page. It is currently under review by our subject matter experts. Jump to: navigation, search Loading... 1. Basic Information 2. Demand 3. Energy << Previous 1 2 3 Next >> Basic Information Utility name: Midwest Energy Inc Effective date: 2012/06/29 End date if known: Rate name: LAL- MH 1000 Watt 362 kWh (Existing Pole)- Metered Sector: Lighting Description: Source or reference: http://www.mwenergy.com/elecrate.aspx Source Parent: Comments Applicability Demand (kW) Minimum (kW): Maximum (kW): History (months): Energy (kWh) Minimum (kWh): Maximum (kWh): History (months): Service Voltage Minimum (V): Maximum (V): Character of Service Voltage Category: Phase Wiring: << Previous 1 2 3 Next >>

457

PN1C-F.172a DEPARTAIENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER  

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

PN1C-F.172a PN1C-F.172a DEPARTAIENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETERMINATION RECIP1ENT:Department of Commerce, Energy Office STATE: AZ PROJECT TITLE : Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Schools Funding Opportunity Announcement Number Procurement Instrument Number NEPA Control Number CID Number DE-F0A0000053 EE-0000106 GF0-09-425-015 0 Based on my review of the information concerning the proposed action, as NEPA Compliance Officer (authorized under DOE Order 451.1A), I have made the following determination: CX, EA, EIS APPENDIX AND NUMBER: Description: B5.1 Actions to conserve energy, demonstrate potential energy conservation. and promote energy-efficiency that do not increase the indoor concentrations of potentially harmful substances. These actions may involve financial and technical

458

EIS-0275: Disposal of the S1C Prototype Reactor Plant, Hanford Site, Richland, WA (Navy Document)  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This EIS analyzes the Office of Naval Reactors (Naval Reactors) proposed action to dismantle the defueled S1C Prototype reactor plant.

459

Course Objective 1 1c Define terms common to the discussion of patients with disorders of the gastrointestinal system.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, radiology, pathology, pediatrics, nutrition)13 5c,6h Utilize the results of outcome studies gastrointestinal diseases. 11 1c Describe common pediatric GI disorders and how pathophysiologic

Myers, Lawrence C.

460

Environmental sciences division: Environmental regulatory update table July 1988  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Environmental Regulatory Update Table provides information on regulatory initiatives of interest to DOE operations and contractor staff with environmental management responsibilities. The table is updated each month with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Langston, M.E.; Nikbakht, A.; Salk, M.S.

1988-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


461

Environmental regulatory update table, July/August 1994  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Environmental Regulatory Update Table provides information on regulatory initiatives of interest to DOE operations and contractor staff with environmental management responsibilities. The table is updated bi-monthly with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Bock, R.E.; Salk, M.S.

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

462

Composite slip table of dissimilar materials for damping longitudinal modes  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A vibration slip table for use in a vibration testing apparatus. The table s comprised of at least three composite layers of material; a first metal layer, a second damping layer, and a third layer having a high acoustic velocity relative to the first layer. The different acoustic velocities between the first and third layers cause relative shear displacements between the layers with the second layer damping the displacements between the first and third layers to reduce the table longitudinal vibration modes.

Gregory, Danny L. (Albuquerque, NM); Priddy, Tommy G. (Albuquerque, NM); Smallwood, David O. (Albuquerque, NM); Woodall, Tommy D. (Albuquerque, NM)

1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

463

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, November--December 1993  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Environmental Regulatory Update Table provides information on regulatory of interest to DOE operations and contractor staff with environmental management responsibilities. The table is updated bi-monthly with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Salk, M.S.; Danford, G.S.; Lewis, E.B.

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

464

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, May--June 1994  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Environmental Regulatory Update Table provides information on regulatory initiatives of interest to DOE operations and contractor staff with environmental management responsibilities. The table is updated bimonthly with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Bock, R.E.; Salk, M.S.

1994-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

465

Computers in Commercial Buildings - Table 4  

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

4 4 Table 4. Percent Change in the Number of Computers in Commercial Buildings, 1992 to 1999 Percent Change in Number of Computers Percent Change in Computers per Thousand Employees Percent Change in Computers per Million Square Feet 1992 to 1995 1995 to 1999 1992 to 1995 1995 to 1999 1992 to 1995 1995 to 1999 All Buildings 45 35 32 24 58 17 Principal Building Activity Assembly* 109 -6 54 104 157 44 Education 34 48 -3 58 46 33 Food Sales 142 20 213 -20 184 -22 Food Service 89 102 82 17 108 48 Health Care 126 43 70 3 70 15 Lodging 99 45 47 69 59 16 Mercantile and Service 62 25 96 107 57 147 Office 37 31 33 20 53 14 Large (>50,000 Sq. Ft.) 37 31 24 16 52 3 Small (<=50,000 Sq. Ft.) 37 30 48 26 55 28 Warehouse and Storage 24 43 4 13 58 16 Other (incl. Vacant) 24 44 -15 462 54 364  * The category "assembly" is equivalent to the "public assembly" category used in the 1999 tables and figures.

466

Computers in Commercial Buildings - Table 3  

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

EIA Home > Commercial Home > Data Reports > EIA Home > Commercial Home > Data Reports > Computers in Commercial Buildings >Table 3 Table 3. Change in the Number of Computers in Commercial Buildings, 1992 to 1999 Computers (thousand) Computers per Thousand Employees Computers per Million Square Feet 1992 1995 1999 1992 1995 1999 1992 1995 1999 All Buildings 29,752 43,003 57,864 431 571 707 463 732 859 Principal Building Activity Assembly* 845 1,763 1,654 167 258 526 102 262 377 Education 6,004 8,046 11,914 877 847 1,335 710 1,039 1,377 Food Sales 85 206 247 101 316 252 113 321 249 Food Service 146 276 557 65 118 138 98 204 301 Health Care 1,128 2,549 3,652 334 569 587 641 1,092 1,252 Lodging 651 1,296 1,884 322 472 800 225 358 417 Mercantile and Service 2,478 4,021 5,044 157 308 639 201 316 780 Office 15,451 21,173 27,642 599 797 954 1,319 2,021 2,295

467

Computers in Commercial Buildings - Table 1  

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

EIA Home > Commercial Home > Data Reports > EIA Home > Commercial Home > Data Reports > Computers in Commercial Buildings >Table 1 Table 1. Computers in Commercial Buildings, 1999 Number of Buildings (thousand) Total Floorspace (million square feet) Number of Employees (thousand) Total Computers (thousand) Computers per Million Square Feet Computers per Thousand Employees All Buildings 4,657 67,338 81,852 57,864 859 707 Principal Building Activity Education 327 8,651 8,927 11,914 1,377 1,335 Food Sales 174 994 980 247 249 252 Food Service 349 1,851 4,031 557 301 138 Health Care 127 2,918 6,219 3,652 1,252 587 Inpatient 11 1,865 3,350 2,230 1,196 666 Outpatient 116 1,053 2,869 1,421 1,351 495 Lodging 153 4,521 2,356 1,884 417 800 Mercantile 667 10,398 11,384 3,561 342 313 Retail (Other than Mall) 534 4,766 4,668 1,802 378 386 Enclosed and Strip Malls

468

International energy indicators. [Statistical tables and graphs  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

International statistical tables and graphs are given for the following: (1) Iran - Crude Oil Capacity, Production and Shut-in, June 1974-April 1980; (2) Saudi Arabia - Crude Oil Capacity, Production, and Shut-in, March 1974-Apr 1980; (3) OPEC (Ex-Iran and Saudi Arabia) - Capacity, Production and Shut-in, June 1974-March 1980; (4) Non-OPEC Free World and US Production of Crude Oil, January 1973-February 1980; (5) Oil Stocks - Free World, US, Japan, and Europe (Landed, 1973-1st Quarter, 1980); (6) Petroleum Consumption by Industrial Countries, January 1973-December 1979; (7) USSR Crude Oil Production and Exports, January 1974-April 1980; and (8) Free World and US Nuclear Generation Capacity, January 1973-March 1980. Similar statistical tables and graphs included for the United States include: (1) Imports of Crude Oil and Products, January 1973-April 1980; (2) Landed Cost of Saudi Oil in Current and 1974 Dollars, April 1974-January 1980; (3) US Trade in Coal, January 1973-March 1980; (4) Summary of US Merchandise Trade, 1976-March 1980; and (5) US Energy/GNP Ratio, 1947 to 1979.

Bauer, E.K. (ed.)

1980-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

469

Microsoft Word - table_01_1.doc  

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

Table 1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, 2008-2012 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year 476,652 493,100 487,627 514,637 482,822 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 15,134,644 14,414,287 13,247,498 12,291,070 12,736,678 From Oil Wells 5,609,425 5,674,120 5,834,703 5,907,919 4,969,668 From Coalbed Wells 2,022,228 2,010,171 1,916,762 1,779,055 1,539,395 From Shale Gas Wells 2,869,960 3,958,315 5,817,122 8,500,983 10,296,572 Total 25,636,257 26,056,893 26,816,085 28,479,026 29,542,313 Repressuring 3,638,622 3,522,090 3,431,587 3,365,313 3,259,680 Vented and Flared 166,909 165,360 165,928 209,439 212,848

470

Petroleum Products Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 56 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1996 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD...

471

Petroleum Products Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 262 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1996 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type,...

472

Petroleum Products Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 262 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1997 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type,...

473

Geothermal CSC Data Tables Template | OpenEI Community  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Tables Template Home > Groups > 2014 Geothermal Case Study Challenge Mbennett's picture Submitted by Mbennett(30) Member 24 January, 2014 - 11:27 Upload Files: application...

474

Table of Contents Central Colorado's Severe Downslope Windstorms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 National Weather Service Length of Service Awards for Western Colorado#12;Table of Contents Central Colorado's Severe Downslope Windstorms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Colorado Climate in Review

475

Table 21. Domestic Crude Oil First Purchase Prices  

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

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 41 Table 21. Domestic Crude Oil First Purchase Prices (Dollars per Barrel) - Continued Year Month PAD District II...

476

Table 21. Domestic Crude Oil First Purchase Prices  

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

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 41 Table 21. Domestic Crude Oil First Purchase Prices (Dollars per Barrel) - Continued Year Month PAD District II...

477

Table 21. Domestic Crude Oil First Purchase Prices  

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

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 41 Table 21. Domestic Crude Oil First Purchase Prices (Dollars per Barrel) - Continued Year Month PAD District II...

478

TABLE 1. Nuclear Reactor, State, Type, Net Capacity, Generation...  

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

TABLE 1. Nuclear Reactor, State, Type, Net Capacity, Generation, and Capacity Factor " "PlantReactor Name","Generator ID","State","Type","2009 Summer Capacity"," 2010 Annual...

479

,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected...  

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

January 23, 2008" ,"Next Update: October 2007" ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, " ,"2005...

480

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 2003 - Detailed Tables  

Reports and Publications (EIA)

The tables contain information about energy consumption and expenditures in U.S. commercial buildings and information about energy-related characteristics of these buildings.

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table 1c off-site" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


481

ACCELERATOR TEST FACILITY SAFETY ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT TABLE OF...  

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

Revised: March 1, 2010 i ACCELERATOR TEST FACILITY SAFETY ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY ......

482

Table of Contents About the Weizmann Institute of Science.........................................................................................................1  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

#12;Table of Contents About the Weizmann Institute of Science..........................................................................................................9 Department of Plant Sciences...........................................................................................................40 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences

Maoz, Shahar

483

About the Weizmann Institute of Science Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

About the Weizmann Institute of Science #12;Table of Contents About the Weizmann Institute of Science..........................................................................................................8 Department of Plant Sciences

Maoz, Shahar

484

About the Weizmann Institute of Science Table of Contents  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

About the Weizmann Institute of Science #12;Table of Contents About the Weizmann Institute of Science.........................................................................................................7 Department of Plant Sciences

Maoz, Shahar

485

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

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

See footnotes at end of table. 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State 386 Energy Information...

486

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

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

Marketing Annual 1999 Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

487

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

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

Marketing Annual 1995 Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

488

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Marketing Annual 1998 Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

489

Figure 3-11 South Table Mountain Utilities Map  

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

FTLB AMMO LEGEND Gas Existing Buildings Electrical Figure 3-11 South Table Mountain Utilities Map Sewer Communication Water Surface Drainage Storm Water WATER TANK FACILITIES...

490

EIA - Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Data Tables  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Release Date: May 7, 2014 | Next Release Date: March 2015 | See schedule | full report Overview Data Reference Case Side Cases Interactive Table Viewer...

491

EIA - Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2011 Data Tables  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Interactive Table Viewer Topics Source OilLiquids Natural Gas Coal Electricity RenewableAlternative Nuclear Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Energy Demand...

492

Table of Contents for the Site-Wide Environmental Assessment  

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

South Table Mountain Complex LIST OF ACRONYMS AFUF Alternative Fuels User Facility APEN Air Pollution Emission Notice ART Advanced Research Turbine AST Aboveground Storage Tank...

493

Table of contents 1 What is software architecture? ......................................................................... 1  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Table of contents 1 What is software architecture? ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Software architecture as abstraction ............................................................ 2 1.2 Software architecture as blueprint

Dustdar, Schahram

494

FY 2014 VEHICLES DE-FOA-0000988 SELECTION TABLE | Department...  

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

Table.pdf More Documents & Publications Ultra-efficient, Robust and Well-defined Nano-Array based Monolithic Catalysts Three-Dimensional Composite Nanostructures for Lean...

495

Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per...

496

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

497

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

498

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

- - - - W W - - - - - - See footnotes at end of table. 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 86 Energy Information...

499

Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per...

500

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...