Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

Statement of Work for Direct Push Technology Characterization Borehole Installations During Fiscal Year 2006, 300-FF-5 Operable Unit  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This document specifies activities to be performed by FHI to fulfill Part II of the 300-FF-5 Operable Unit Limited Field Investigation. The scope includes driving up to 15 direct push technology boreholes to the water table for radiological geophysical logging of the vadose zone to define the vertical extent and concentration of process uranium waste in the subsurface. Drilling and sampling field activates will follow FHI waste management, risk assessment and QA process and procedures. The sampling and analysis of information recovered during this characterization will meet the Hanford Performance Assessment Project QAAP requirements.

Williams, Bruce A.

2005-11-29T23:59:59.000Z

2

Innovative Direct Push Technologies for Characterization of the 216-Z-9 Trench at DOE's Hanford Site  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Because of the significant radiological and chemical hazards present at the 216-Z-9 Trench at the US Department of Energy Hanford Site, the only practical subsurface characterization methods are those that minimize or control airborne vapors and particles. This study evaluates and compares the performance of two Direct Push Technologies (Hydraulic Hammer Rig (HHR) and Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT)) with traditional cable tool drilling in similar difficult geologic conditions. The performance was based on the depth of penetration, the ability to collect representative vadose zone soil samples, the penetration rate, and the relative cost. The HHR achieved deeper penetration depths and faster penetration rates than CPT techniques, while still maintaining the waste minimization benefits of direct push technologies. Although cable tool drilling achieved the deepest penetration, the safety and disposal concerns due to the soil cuttings that were generated made this drilling approach both slow and costly compared to the direct push techniques. (authors)

Bratton, W.; Moser, K.; Holm, R. [Vista Engineering Technologies, LLC, Washington (United States); Morse, J.; Tortoso, A. [US Department of Energy - Richland Operations Office, Washington (United States)

2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

3

Table 3-2. Activity and idea summary for unit 2, cycle 3: Combining Pushes and Pulls. Activity Activity Summary Benchmark Ideas  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

54 Table 3-2. Activity and idea summary for unit 2, cycle 3: Combining Pushes and Pulls. Activity individual objects and predict the combined weight of groups of objects. The teacher then leads a class, and then the teacher leads a class discussion as to which ideas best explain the cycle phenomena. All cycle ideas. A5

Sandifer, Cody

4

A computational study of shoulder muscle forces during pushing tasks  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Previous research into the biomechanics of pushing tasks focused on shoulder moment to measure operator shoulder stress, without employing a biomechanical model of the shoulder complex. The goal of this research was to explore the process of developing analysis and design tools that input easily measured parameters to quantify the stress of pushing tasks, suggest maximum acceptable loads for pushing tasks and suggest optimal handle heights and pushing styles. Shoulder loading analysis modules were used to produce a look-up table which allows ergonomists to estimate the percentage of maximum muscle force generated by the subscapularis muscle, which is considered to be a marker variable for increased risk of subacromial impingement syndrome. Two methods were developed to determine maximum acceptable pushing forces: a look-up table and an empirically derived equation. The second design tool was replaced by a design recommendation: push with a cart handle near waist height with arms extended.

Travis Steele; Andrew Merryweather; Clark R. Dickerson; Donald Bloswick

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

5

AEC Pushes Fusion Reactors  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

AEC Pushes Fusion Reactors ... Project Sherwood, as the study program is called, began in 1951-52 soon after the first successful thermonuclear explosion in the Pacific. ...

1955-10-10T23:59:59.000Z

6

Push-pull betatron pair  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A push-pull betatron accelerator with two coaxial betatron tubes in which two electron beams are alternately accelerated in opposite directions of rotation. Both tubes are linked by the same alternating current accelerating flux produced by one or more accelerating flux coils. The betatron tubes are provided with guide fields having alternating current components which are in the same direction and having direct current biasing components which are in opposite directions. One electron beam is accelerated when the accelerating flux is changing between its negative maximum and its positive maximum, while the other beam is accelerated when the accelerating flux is changing between its positive maximum and its negative maximum. In another embodiment, there is only one betatron tube, in which two electron beams are alternately accelerated in opposite directions of rotation; and in still another embodiment, there are two tubes in which electrons are accelerated alternately, but the AC components for the guide fields are in opposite directions for the two tubes, while the DC biasing components are polarized the same for both tubes.

Kerst, Donald W. (Madison, WI)

1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

7

Push-pull betatron pair  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

The disclosed push-pull betatron accelerator has first and second coaxial betatron tubes in which first and second electron beams are alternately accelerated in opposite directions of rotation. Both tubes are linked by the same alternating current accelerating flux, produced by one or more accelerating flux coils. The betatron tubes are provided with first and second guide fields having alternating current components which are in the same direction. The first and second guide fields have direct current biasing components which are in opposite directions for the two betatron tubes. In this way, the full advantages of guide field biasing are achieved. The first electron beam is accelerated in the first tube when the accelerating flux is changing between its negative maximum and its positive maximum values. The second electron beam is accelerated in the second tube when the accelerating flux is changing between its positive maximum value and its negative maximum value. In another embodiment, there is only one betatron tube, in which two electron beams are alternately accelerated in opposite directions of rotation.

Kerst, D.W.

1984-02-22T23:59:59.000Z

8

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

9

DOE Drives Big Data Push  

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

2 Volume 9 Issue 2 2 Volume 9 Issue 2 From YAGS to Planetary Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DOE Drives Big Data Push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Sweating Small Scale Genomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Future of the DOE JGI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Save the Date for Meeting 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 also in this issue With a record 488 genomics researchers and bioinformaticians sitting in the Marriott Walnut Creek ballroom, New York Times science writer Carl Zimmer opened the DOE Joint Genome Institute's 7th Annual Genomics of Energy & Environment Meeting on March 20, 2012. Sharing his thoughts about being "On the Genome Beat," he informed the audience that he was worn down by seeing news about scientists successfully sequencing yet another genome sequence, and that "maybe some genomes shouldn't be written about." Zimmer's words engaged the audience in a discussion that

10

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

11

Selecting the optimum coke pushing sequence  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The sequence of pushing coke ovens is one of the most important aspects of battery operation. The sequence must satisfy a number of technical and process conditions: (1) achieve maximum heating-wall life by avoiding destructive expansion pressure in freshly charged ovens and during pushing of the finished coke; (2) ensure uniform brickwork temperature and prevent overheating by compensating for the high thermal flux in freshly charged ovens due to accumulated heat in adjacent ovens that are in the second half of the coking cycle; (3) ensure the most favorable working conditions and safety for operating personnel; (4) provide additional opportunities for repair personnel to perform various types of work, such as replacing coke-machine rails, without interrupting coal production; (5) perform the maximum number of coke-machine operations simultaneously: pushing, charging, and cleaning doors, frames, and standpipe elbows; and (6) reduce electricity consumption by minimizing idle travel of coke machines.

V.T. Krivoshein; A.V. Makarov [ZAO Trest Koksokhimmontazh (Russian Federation)

2007-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

12

Pulling by Pushing, Slip with Infinite Friction,  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Pulling by Pushing, Slip with Infinite Friction, and Perfectly Rough Surfaces Kevin M. Lynch the two objects even with an infinite coefficient of friction. Thus the common conception that infinite friction prevents slip is in error. This paper shows examples of the phenomena with both quasi

13

Community Divides Over Push for Bigger Budget  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...ammunition for things that matter, says lobbyist Mike Lubell of the American Physical Society, a leader of the doubling push...your ammunition for things that matter,' says lobbyist Mike Lubell of the American Physical Society, a leader of the doubling...

David Malakoff

1999-05-28T23:59:59.000Z

14

Idling Pushes Profits out the Tailpipe  

Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center [Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)]

Pushes Profits Pushes Profits out the Tailpipe Idling a heavy-duty truck for comfort and convenience during rest stops and depot downtime is an expensive way to keep drivers safe and comfortable. Increasingly affordable alternatives to idling not only reduce pollution and noise, but also save money. Typically, a long-haul truck idles about 1,830 hours per year, using almost 1,500 gallons of fuel. In practice, some trucks idle just a couple of nights per week while others are rarely in "engine off" mode. Trucks idle to: * Heat and cool the cab and sleeper * Keep the engine and cab warm while waiting in lines and making pick-ups and deliveries * Mask noises while the truck operator sleeps * Keep the fuel warm in the winter * Avoid cold starting * Provide for personal safety

15

Micro/nano-mechanical test system employing tensile test holder with push-to-pull transformer  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A micromachined or microelectromechanical system (MEMS) based push-to-pull mechanical transformer for tensile testing of micro-to-nanometer scale material samples including a first structure and a second structure. The second structure is coupled to the first structure by at least one flexible element that enables the second structure to be moveable relative to the first structure, wherein the second structure is disposed relative to the first structure so as to form a pulling gap between the first and second structures such that when an external pushing force is applied to and pushes the second structure in a tensile extension direction a width of the pulling gap increases so as to apply a tensile force to a test sample mounted across the pulling gap between a first sample mounting area on the first structure and a second sample mounting area on the second structure.

Oh, Yunje; Cyrankowski, Edward; Shan, Zhiwei; Syed Asif, Syed Amanula

2014-07-29T23:59:59.000Z

16

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.

17

Buffalo Pushes Energy-Efficient Affordable Housing in New York  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

Better Buildings Residential Network member PUSH (People United for Sustainable Housing) Buffalo broke ground in March 2014 on its Massachusetts Avenue Sustainable Homes (MASH) project. The...

18

Buffalo Pushes Energy-Efficient Affordable Housing in New York...  

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

they would like to see in their neighborhood, including parks, bike lanes, affordable housing, and infrastructure. Learn more about PUSH Buffalo's boots-on-the-ground approach....

19

Direct  

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

interactions, and the pollutant emission is hence directly proportional to the bulk neutral density. Simultaneously monitoring the total emission at 1040 nm and the...

20

Rebates push sales of efficient appliances  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Electric utility appliance-rebate programs can be an effective way to promote improved appliance efficiency. However, rebate values have to be chosen carefully to match the benefits and costs for the two main parties involved: appliance purchasers and ratepayers. 3 tables.

Gorzelnik, E.F.

1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

The Mechanics of Fine Manipulation by Pushing Kevin M. Lynch  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of these contacts. Each contact point receives one of four possible labels indicating the motion of the slider to grasp and lift the object. The ability to precisely position objects by pushing can greatly extend question. We pose the pushing problem more generally than it previously has been: Given multiple point

Mason, Matthew T.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

Development of homogeneous mobile robots for box-pushing problem  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper describes the development of a pair of homogeneous mobile robot using AT89C51 microcontroller with two 6V DC motors to address the box-pushing problem. In this work, two homogeneous mobile robots have been fully developed exclusively to address the box-pushing application that is described as ''Pushing a box-like solid item to reach the goal position already defined by more than one mobile robot through the cooperation among them''. Teaching the mobile robots using reinforcement learning is easier, because of specifying a reward function for every task completed by them.

C. Paramasivam; T. Sornakumar

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

26

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

27

E-Print Network 3.0 - alternative assembly pushes Sample Search...  

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

transport. A cheaper and more flex- ible alternative is to use a less powerful robot that can push... that produces conservative bounds on the pushing mo- tions that ......

28

THE PUSH TOWARD GRID REGIONALIZATION IN OPEN ACCESS TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

THE PUSH TOWARD GRID REGIONALIZATION IN OPEN ACCESS TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS ProfessorGeorge Gross Universityof Illinois atUrbana-Champaign USA E-mail:gross@uiuc.edu ExtendedSummary Keywords:RTO, ISO

Gross, George

29

Pushing Super Materials to the Limit | GE Global Research  

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

to the Limit this Spring Break SpringBreakIt - Pushing Super Materials to the Limit this Spring Break Joseph Vinciquerra 2014.04.23 I lead GE's Materials Processing and Testing...

30

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:

31

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

32

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.

33

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

34

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

35

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

36

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

37

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

38

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

39

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

40

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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

42

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

43

Pushing the boundaries of the thermal conductivity of materials  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Pushing the boundaries of the thermal conductivity of materials David G. Cahill, C. Chiritescu, Y. · Advances in time-domain thermoreflectance. · Amorphous limit to the thermal conductivity of materials. #12;50 nm Interfaces are critical at the nanoscale · Low thermal conductivity in nanostructured

Braun, Paul

44

Sebring Highlands Today Leavitt pushes cultural tourism to TDC  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Sebring Highlands Today Leavitt pushes cultural tourism to TDC Bill Rogers July 10, 2011 Fred but cultural tourism as well. "We can do much better," said Leavitt, president of Heartland Cultural Alliance and Conference Center. "We're not getting cultural tourists as we should be. "Cultural tourism is a worldwide

Belogay, Eugene A.

45

PNNL pushing scientific discovery through data intensive computing breakthroughs  

ScienceCinema (OSTI)

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratorys approach to data intensive computing (DIC) is focused on three key research areas: hybrid hardware architectures, software architectures, and analytic algorithms. Advancements in these areas will help to address, and solve, DIC issues associated with capturing, managing, analyzing and understanding, in near real time, data at volumes and rates that push the frontiers of current technologies.

Deborah Gracio; David Koppenaal; Ruby Leung

2012-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

46

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

47

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

48

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)

49

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

50

Prosthetic ankle push-off work reduces metabolic rate but not collision work in  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Prosthetic ankle push-off work reduces metabolic rate but not collision work in non-amputee walking prosthetic ankle push-off should decrease leading limb collision, thereby reducing overall energy requirements. We conducted a rigorous experimental test of this idea wherein ankle-foot prosthesis push

Collins, Steven H.

51

Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance  

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

Wind: Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance ~ Report Summary ~ Download the full 28-page report from: Download the full 28 page report from: http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP/re-pubs.html M k B li Mark Bolinger Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 1 Environmental Energy Technologies Division * Energy Analysis Department January 2011 Report Overview 1) Community Wind as a "Test Bed" for Innovation 2) Policy Changes Have Facilitated Financial Innovation 3) Recent Community Wind Projects Across the US Exemplify the Breadth of Innovation * Case studies of five projects in five states * Projects range in size from 4.5 MW to 25.3 MW * All selling power on the wholesale market (report does not cover behind-the-meter projects) 4) Common Observations and Lessons Learned

52

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:

53

Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance  

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

Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance Title Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance Publication Type Report Refereed Designation Unknown Year of Publication 2011 Authors Bolinger, Mark Pagination 34 Date Published 01/2011 Publisher LBNL City Berkeley Keywords electricity markets and policy group, energy analysis and environmental impacts department Abstract The "community wind" sector in the United States - defined in this report as consisting of relatively small utility-scale wind power projects that sell power on the wholesale market and that are developed and owned primarily by local investors - has historically served as a "test bed" or "proving grounds" not only for up-and-coming wind turbine manufacturers trying to break into the broader U.S. wind market, but also for wind project financing structures. More recently, a handful of community wind projects built over the past year have been financed via new and creative structures that push the envelope of wind project finance in the U.S. - in many cases, moving beyond the now-standard partnership flip structures involving strategic tax equity investors. Details of the financing structures used for each project are described in Section 4 of the full report. In most cases, these are first-of-their-kind structures that could serve as useful examples for other projects - both community and commercial wind alike. Other policy-related enablers of some of the financial innovation profiled in this report include New Markets Tax Credits - which are not new but have only recently been tapped to help finance solar projects and, for the first time, in 2010 have been part of a community wind project financing - and Section 6108 of the 2008 Farm Bill, which expands the USDA's authority to loan to renewable generation projects, even if those projects are not serving traditional rural markets.

54

Direct photo-etching of poly(methyl methacrylate) using focused extreme ultraviolet radiation from a table-top laser-induced plasma source  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In order to perform material interaction studies with intense extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, a Schwarzschild mirror objective coated with Mo/Si multilayers was adapted to a compact laser-based EUV plasma source (pulse energy 3 mJ at {lambda}=13.5 nm, plasma diameter {approx}300 {mu}m). By 10x demagnified imaging of the plasma a pulse energy density of {approx}75 mJ/cm{sup 2} at a pulse length of 6 ns can be achieved in the image plane of the objective. As demonstrated for poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), photoetching of polymer surfaces is possible at this EUV fluence level. This paper presents first results, including a systematic determination of PMMA etching rates under EUV irradiation. Furthermore, the contribution of out-of-band radiation to the surface etching of PMMA was investigated by conducting a diffraction experiment for spectral discrimination from higher wavelength radiation. Imaging of a pinhole positioned behind the plasma accomplished the generation of an EUV spot of 1 {mu}m diameter, which was employed for direct writing of surface structures in PMMA.

Barkusky, Frank; Peth, Christian; Bayer, Armin; Mann, Klaus [Laser-Laboratorium-Goettingen e.V., Hans-Adolf-Krebs-Weg 1, D-37077 Goettingen (Germany)

2007-06-15T23:59:59.000Z

55

Direct photo-etching of poly(methyl methacrylate) using focused extreme ultraviolet radiation from a table-top laser-induced plasma source  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

In order to perform material interaction studies with intense extreme ultraviolet(EUV)radiation a Schwarzschild mirror objective coated with Mo/Si multilayers was adapted to a compact laser-based EUVplasma source (pulse energy 3 ? mJ ? at ? ? = 13.5 ? nm plasma diameter ? 300 ? ? m ). By 10 demagnified imaging of the plasma a pulse energy density of ? 75 ? mJ ? cm 2 at a pulse length of 6 ns can be achieved in the image plane of the objective. As demonstrated for poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) photoetching of polymer surfaces is possible at this EUV fluence level. This paper presents first results including a systematic determination of PMMA etching rates under EUVirradiation. Furthermore the contribution of out-of-band radiation to the surface etching of PMMA was investigated by conducting a diffraction experiment for spectral discrimination from higher wavelength radiation. Imaging of a pinhole positioned behind the plasma accomplished the generation of an EUV spot of 1 ? ? m diameter which was employed for direct writing of surface structures in PMMA.

Frank Barkusky; Christian Peth; Armin Bayer; Klaus Mann

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

56

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)

57

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.........................................................................................................

58

Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

In the United States, the 'community wind' sector - loosely defined here as consisting of relatively small utility-scale wind power projects that sell power on the wholesale market and that are developed and owned primarily by local investors - has historically served as a 'test bed' or 'proving grounds' for up-and-coming wind turbine manufacturers that are trying to break into the U.S. wind power market. For example, community wind projects - and primarily those located in the state of Minnesota - have deployed the first U.S. installations of wind turbines from Suzlon (in 2003), DeWind (2008), Americas Wind Energy (2008) and later Emergya Wind Technologies (2010), Goldwind (2009), AAER/Pioneer (2009), Nordic Windpower (2010), Unison (2010), and Alstom (2011). Thus far, one of these turbine manufacturers - Suzlon - has subsequently achieved some success in the broader U.S. wind market as well. Just as it has provided a proving grounds for new turbines, so too has the community wind sector served as a laboratory for experimentation with innovative new financing structures. For example, a variation of one of the most common financing arrangements in the U.S. wind market today - the special allocation partnership flip structure (see Figure 1 in Section 2.1) - was first developed by community wind projects in Minnesota more than a decade ago (and is therefore sometimes referred to as the 'Minnesota flip' model) before being adopted by the broader wind market. More recently, a handful of community wind projects built over the past year have been financed via new and creative structures that push the envelope of wind project finance in the U.S. - in many cases, moving beyond the now-standard partnership flip structures involving strategic tax equity investors. These include: (1) a 4.5 MW project in Maine that combines low-cost government debt with local tax equity, (2) a 25.3 MW project in Minnesota using a sale/leaseback structure, (3) a 10.5 MW project in South Dakota financed by an intrastate offering of both debt and equity, (4) a 6 MW project in Washington state that taps into New Markets Tax Credits using an 'inverted' or 'pass-through' lease structure, and (5) a 9 MW project in Oregon that combines a variety of state and federal incentives and loans with unconventional equity from high-net-worth individuals. In most cases, these are first-of-their-kind structures that could serve as useful examples for other projects - both community and commercial wind alike. This report describes each of these innovative new financing structures in some detail, using a case-study approach. The purpose is twofold: (1) to disseminate useful information on these new financial structures, most of which are widely replicable; and (2) to highlight the recent policy changes - many of them temporary unless extended - that have facilitated this innovation. Although the community wind market is currently only a small sub-sector of the U.S. wind market - as defined here, less than 2% of the overall market at the end of 2009 (Wiser and Bolinger 2010) - its small size belies its relevance to the broader market. As such, the information provided in this report has relevance beyond its direct application to the community wind sector. The next two sections of this report briefly summarize how most community wind projects in the U.S. have been financed historically (i.e., prior to this latest wave of innovation) and describe the recent federal policy changes that have enabled a new wave of financial innovation to occur, respectively. Section 4 contains brief case studies of how each of the five projects mentioned above were financed, noting the financial significance of each. Finally, Section 5 concludes by distilling a number of general observations or pertinent lessons learned from the experiences of these five projects.

bolinger, Mark A.

2011-01-18T23:59:59.000Z

59

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

60

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 direct push" 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

POLITICS House Republicans plan to continue antiregulation push  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

POLITICS House Republicans plan to continue antiregulation push ... A top Republican leader in the House of Representatives last week urged fellow Republicans to continue into the fall and winter their fight against what he called job-destroying regulations and their support of business tax relief and general regulatory reform. ... Also last week, President Barack Obama told federal departments to identify and speed government review and permitting for at least three large infrastructure projects with high job potential, and he set Sept. 8 for an address to Congress to announce his job creation program. ...

JEFF JOHNSON

2011-09-05T23:59:59.000Z

62

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.

63

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.

64

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.

65

Pushing The Sample-Size Limit Of Infrared Vibrational Nano-Spectroscop...  

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

The Sample-Size Limit Of Infrared Vibrational Nano-Spectroscopy: From Monolayer Towards Single molecule sensitivity. Pushing The Sample-Size Limit Of Infrared Vibrational...

66

Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance  

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

Community Wind: Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance Mark Bolinger Environmental Energy Technologies Division January 2011 Download from http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP/re-pubs.html The work described in this report was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Wind & Water Power Program) under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. ERNEST ORLANDO LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY LBNL-4193E Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of

67

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...

68

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 &...

69

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)

70

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

71

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

72

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

73

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

74

Africa Becoming a Biofuel Battleground Western companies are pushing to acquire vast  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Africa Becoming a Biofuel Battleground Western companies are pushing to acquire vast stretches of African land to meet the world's biofuel needs By Horand Knaup Western companies are pushing to acquire vast stretches of African land to meet the world's biofuel needs. Local farmers and governments

75

The influence of lubrication on the energy cost of pushing a mine car  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The oxygen intakes of 16 well-trained Bantu mine recruits were studied while they pushed a mine car at a constant speed of 2 miles p. h. The car had dry or partially lubricated axles and was pushed with loads ...

C. G. Williams; J. H. Viljoen

1966-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

76

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

77

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

78

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

79

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

80

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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.

82

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

83

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

84

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 ......

85

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

86

A Push in the Right Direction Author(s): Robert A. Herendeen  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, scarcity,or high prices;recall the oil embargoof 1973 or the last major war, WWII, when we saved tooth",memory fades, and history is forgotten. Above some threshold group population, above some level of affluence in of economic prices that reflect biophysical realities and true costs. This is a signal to which we all respond

Vermont, University of

87

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

88

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

89

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

90

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

91

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

92

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

93

DOE-Sponsored Project Pushes the Limits of Seismic-While-Drilling  

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

Project Pushes the Limits of Seismic-While-Drilling Project Pushes the Limits of Seismic-While-Drilling Technology DOE-Sponsored Project Pushes the Limits of Seismic-While-Drilling Technology August 12, 2009 - 1:00pm Addthis Washington, DC - In a project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Technology International Inc. has developed a breakthrough borehole imaging system that stands on the cusp of commercialization. By pushing the limits of seismic-while-drilling technology, the patent-pending SeismicPULSER system provides more accurate geo-steering for the discovery of new oil and natural gas reserves, facilitating new field development and improving well economics. Drill-bit seismic-while-drilling techniques use a downhole acoustic source and receivers at the surface to create real-time images that allow

94

Real-time push middleware and mobile application for electric vehicle smart charging and aggregation  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper presents a real-time push middleware and mobile application for data and multimedia content delivery to enable electric vehicle smart charging and aggregation. Intelligent aggregation and charge scheduling software can leverage the battery ...

Siddhartha Mal; Rajit Gadh

2013-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

95

Eye Pull, Eye Push: Moving Objects between Large Screens and Personal Devices with Gaze and Touch  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Previous work has validated the eyes and mobile input as a viable approach for pointing at, and selecting out of reach objects. This work presents Eye Pull, Eye Push, a novel interaction concept for content tr...

Jayson Turner; Jason Alexander

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

96

E-Print Network 3.0 - aortic repair pushing Sample Search Results  

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

for: aortic repair pushing Page: << < 1 2 3 4 5 > >> 1 Mechanobiology of the Aortic Heart Valve Jonathan T. Butcher1 Summary: ;13:798-803 18. Deck JD, Thubrikar MJ, Schneider...

97

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 -- --

98

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..........................................

99

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

100

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...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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

102

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%

103

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

104

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 -- -- --

105

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

106

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

107

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.......................

108

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

109

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......................

110

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

111

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

112

San Francisco Turns Up The Heat In Push To Eliminate Old Boilers |  

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

Francisco Turns Up The Heat In Push To Eliminate Old Boilers Francisco Turns Up The Heat In Push To Eliminate Old Boilers San Francisco Turns Up The Heat In Push To Eliminate Old Boilers February 8, 2011 - 5:37pm Addthis Before and after shots of a new boiler system | courtesy of the Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Before and after shots of a new boiler system | courtesy of the Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs Johanna Sevier Project Officer, Golden Field Office San Francisco's extensive stock of multifamily properties is getting some critical assistance in replacing old and inefficient boilers with new, high-efficiency heating systems using Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds. By providing financial incentives to property owners, new heating systems result in energy savings, job creation for

113

Prototype pushing robot for emplacing vitrified waste canisters into horizontal disposal drifts  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Within the French Underground Disposal concept, as described in ANDRA's (Agence Nationale pour la Gestion des Dechets Radioactifs) Dossier 2005, the Pushing Robot is an application envisaged for the emplacement (and the potential retrieval) of 'Vitrified waste packages', also called 'C type packages'. ANDRA has developed a Prototype Pushing Robot within the framework of the ESDRED Project (Engineering Studies and Demonstration of Repository Design) which is co-funded by the European Commission as part of the sixth EURATOM Research and Training Framework Programme (FP6) on nuclear energy (2002 - 2006). The Rationale of the Pushing Robot technology comes from various considerations, including the need for (1) a simple and robust system, capable of moving (and potentially retrieving) on up to 40 metres (m), a 2 tonne C type package (mounted on ceramic sliding runners) inside the carbon steel sleeve constituting the liner (and rock support) of a horizontal disposal cell, (2) small annular clearances between the package and the liner, (3) compactness of the device to be transferred from surface to underground, jointly with the package, inside a shielding cask, and (4) remote controlled operations for the sake of radioprotection. The initial design, based on gripping supports, has been replaced by a 'technical variant' based on inflatable toric jacks. It was then possible, using a test bench, to check that the Pushing Robot worked properly. Steps as high as 7 mm were successfully cleared by a dummy package pushed by the Prototype.. Based on the lessons learned by ANDRA's regarding the Prototype Pushing Robot, a new Scope of Work is being written for the Contract concerning an Industrial Scale Demonstrator. The Industrial Scale Demonstration should be completed by the end of the second Quarter of 2008. (authors)

Londe, L.; Seidler, W.K.; Bosgiraud, J.M.; Guenin, J.J. [Agence Nationale pour la Gestion des Dechets Radioactifs (ANDRA), 92 - Chatenay Malabry (France); Devaux, P. [CREATIV ALLIANCE, 78 - Viroflay (France)

2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

114

Consideration of air jet angle in open surface tank push-pull ventilation system design  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

CONSIDERATION OF AIR JET ANGLE IN OPEN SURFACE TANK PUSH-PULL VENTILATION SYSTEM DESIGN A Thesis by WAI-HUNG DAVID CHAN Submitted to the Graduate College of Texas ASM University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree o... MASTER OF SCIENCE May 1983 Major Subjeot: Industrial Hygiene CONSIDERATION OF AIR JET ANGLE IN OPEN SURFACE TANK PUSH-PULL VENTILATION STSTEM DESIGN A Thesis by WAI-HUNG DAVID CHAN Approved as to style and content by: (C an of mmittee) J. Suggs...

Chan, Wai-Hung David

1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

115

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

116

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

117

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

118

Compact two-beam push-pull free electron laser  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

An ultra-compact free electron laser comprising a pair of opposed superconducting cavities that produce identical electron beams moving in opposite directions such that each set of superconducting cavities accelerates one electron beam and decelerates the other electron beam. Such an arrangement, allows the energy used to accelerate one beam to be recovered and used again to accelerate the second beam, thus, each electron beam is decelerated by a different structure than that which accelerated it so that energy exchange rather than recovery is achieved resulting in a more compact and highly efficient apparatus.

Hutton, Andrew (Yorktown, VA)

2009-03-03T23:59:59.000Z

119

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

120

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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

122

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

123

eXtremes of heat conduction: Pushing the boundaries of the thermal  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

eXtremes of heat conduction: Pushing the boundaries of the thermal conductivity of materials David. · For example, simplest case of thermal conductivity where resistive scattering dominates C() v() l() d C for the highest thermal conductivity any material (higher conductivity than diamond) Yu et al. (2005) Maruyama

Braun, Paul

124

Dilatation versus self-intersection number for point-pushing pseudo-Anosov homeomorphisms  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......We then lift this point-pushing...segments i along lifts li of that...the marked points x1...are at least four copies of...the marked point around 0 transforms...0 1(S2) lifts to a filling...trigons, four bigons, and......

Spencer Dowdall

2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

125

Push-to-Talk Social Talk ALLISON WOODRUFF & PAUL M. AOKI  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Push-to-Talk Social Talk ALLISON WOODRUFF & PAUL M. AOKI Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA (E-mail: woodruff@acm.org, aoki@acm.org) Abstract. This paper within gelled social groups, especially those comprised of young adults. This population is interesting

Aoki, Paul M.

126

How Push-To-Talk Makes Talk Less Pushy Allison Woodruff and Paul M. Aoki  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

How Push-To-Talk Makes Talk Less Pushy Allison Woodruff and Paul M. Aoki Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA woodruff@acm.org, aoki@acm.org ABSTRACT This paper. This population is interesting to study because its members allocate a great deal of time to social communication

Aoki, Paul M.

127

Standards and innovation in emerging fields: Pushing breakthrough innovation or enrolling actors?  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1 Standards and innovation in emerging fields: Pushing breakthrough innovation or enrolling actors? An analysis of eco-district standards in France and Denmark Aurélien Acquier ESCP Europe 79, av are grateful to PUCA in France for providing research funding for this project. #12;2 Abstract Standards

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

128

SN2, SN1 Reactions; Mechanisms and Arrow-Pushing 44 Chem 355-Jasperse  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

SN2, SN1 Reactions; Mechanisms and Arrow-Pushing 44 Chem 355-Jasperse STRUCTURAL EFFECTSL of solution (NaI/acetone for the SN2 reactions, AgNO3/ethanol for the SN1 reactions), [stopper the tube reaction speed. For the SN2 reaction (Part 1), need samples 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11. For the SN1 reaction

Jasperse, Craig P.

129

Next Generation of Push-to-Talk Page 1 of 10  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, gas, wind, solar energy utilities Natural resource exploration companies Shipping, delivery with an individual or a group with the push of a button on a handset. The quick and efficient nature of PTT calls has made the technology a core communication tool for the public safety sector and dozens of industry

Fisher, Kathleen

130

THE SELF-ADJUSTING CURRENT-FED PUSH-PULL PARALLEL RESONANT INVERTER AS A HIGH FREQUENCY AC BUS DRIVER  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

. The power inverter is based on a Current-Fed Push-Pull Parallel-Resonant Inverter (CFPPRI), which includes power eliminates some of the conversion units, it poses new design challenges [1]: (a) ElectromagneticTHE SELF-ADJUSTING CURRENT-FED PUSH-PULL PARALLEL RESONANT INVERTER AS A HIGH FREQUENCY AC BUS

131

Table of Contents  

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

(AVL). The ability to track and direct vehicles in the field to locations needing repair is a critical need, but one which does not necessarily require next generation...

132

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.

133

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

134

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%

135

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)

136

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

137

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

138

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

139

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

140

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.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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...

142

Declotting a Thrombosed Brescia-Cimino Fistula by Manual Catheter-Directed Aspiration of the Thrombus  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Acute thrombosis of native fistulae for hemodialysis occurs more rarely than for prosthetic grafts. The vascular access should be reopened as soon as possible in order to resume regular dialysis and to avoid resorting to a temporary central line. Manual aspiration is one of the numerous methods described in this setting. Clinical examination is essential to rule out local infection, which is the only serious contraindication to percutaneous maneuvers. Two introducer-sheaths are placed in a criss-cross fashion in order to gain access to the venous outflow and to the anastomosis. Access to the venous outflow is performed first in order to check the proximal extent of the thrombosis. Heparin and antibiotics are injected systemically. A similar maneuver is then performed in the direction of the anastomosis. The aspiration phase is then initiated. A 7-9 Fr aspiration catheter is pushed through the 'venous' introducer. Manual aspiration is created through a 50 ml syringe while the catheter is progressively removed with back and forth movements. The catheter and the contents of the syringe are flushed through a gauze on the working table to evaluate the amount of thrombus which has been removed and the maneuver is repeated as often as necessary to remove all the thrombus. Once all the clots located downstream from the venous introducer have been removed, any unmasked underlying stenosis is NOT dilated at this stage since it provides protection against major embolism coming from the inflow. The aspiration catheter is then pushed through the 'arterial' introducer down to the anastomosis in order to aspirate the thrombus located between the tip of the introducer and the anastomosis. Dilatation of unmasked stenoses is finally performed using high-pressure balloons. The holes made by the two introducers are closed using a U-shaped suture with interposition of a short piece of plastic and the patient is sent back to the nephrologists for dialysis.

Turmel-Rodrigues, Luc A [Clinique Saint-Gatien, Radiologie Vasculaire, Diagnostique et Interventionnelle (France)], E-mail: luc.turmel@wanadoo.fr, E-mail: cim.stgatien@wanadoo.fr

2005-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

143

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...

144

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...

145

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

146

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

147

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

148

Modeling and Optimization of PEMFC Systems and its Application to Direct Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

operating conditions. Direct Hydrogen Fuel Cell System Modelconditions for a direct hydrogen fuel cell system Table 1simulation tool for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, Journal of

Zhao, Hengbing; Burke, Andy

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

149

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

150

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...

151

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

152

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

153

Pushing the Boundaries in Energy Technbology: Materials Design for Battery Applications  

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

Pushing the Boundaries in Energy Technology: Materials Design for Battery Applications" Pushing the Boundaries in Energy Technology: Materials Design for Battery Applications" Co-Organizers: Elena Shevchenko (CNM), Mitra Taheri (Drexel University), and Mali Balasubramanian (APS) Batteries are a key element for storing and supplying energy. Transformational battery technologies require tailoring novel materials and/or incorporating new chemical processes. Energy storage devices are intrinsically complex with the relevant materials processes covering time-scales from picoseconds to years and length-scales from angstroms to millimeters. Advanced x-ray and electron microscopy methods have opened a new window by which vital structural and electronic properties of battery materials can be obtained at the appropriate spatio- temporal scales using spectroscopic, scattering and imaging techniques under real world

154

How do I push or pull bulk wiki pages from OpenEI mediawiki instance? |  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

How do I push or pull bulk wiki pages from OpenEI mediawiki instance? How do I push or pull bulk wiki pages from OpenEI mediawiki instance? Home > Groups > Developer Submitted by Rmckeel on 10 October, 2012 - 10:00 1 answer Points: 0 Jay did a great write-up with code samples on this! Please check out http://en.openei.org/community/blog/openei-downloadupload-automation-scripts Rmckeel on 10 October, 2012 - 10:00 Groups Menu You must login in order to post into this group. Recent content Timo,My apologies for the ... Browse by region (RaphaelSVGMap) The utility rate database version 1 API is now deprecated Probably the best reference on... New Robust References! more Group members (18) Managers: Rmckeel Recent members: Sangduen Timo.Kouwenhoven Jwkropf KingJahfy Graham7781 Ianjkalin Autumn1 Mvdv Sprzesmi Satish Cdonnelly Wzeng Twong Jayhuggins

155

Pushing Boundaries on Performance & Design: the ClimateMaster Trilogy 40  

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

Pushing Boundaries on Performance & Design: the ClimateMaster Trilogy® 40 Pushing Boundaries on Performance & Design: the ClimateMaster Trilogy® 40 Q-Mode(tm) Geothermal Heat Pump August 01, 2013 The ClimateMaster Trilogy® 40 Q-Mode(tm) Geothermal Heat Pump, is the result of a 5 year collaboration between ClimateMaster, Inc. and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The unit reduces energy consumption by combining 3 variable speed technologies: an inverter-driven compressor, indoor air blower, and water pump. Introduced July 9, 2012, and available for limited order in December 2012, the ClimateMaster Trilogy® 40 Q-Mode(tm) Geothermal Heat Pump, the outcome of a 5 year collaboration between ClimateMaster, Inc., and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), is an ultrahigh-efficiency geothermal heat pump that pro- vides space heating, cooling, and water heating.

156

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

157

Biomechanical Analysis on Hip-push Skills Applied in Walking Race  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract By referring to many relevant data and essays, this paper aims at discussing and analyzing the importance of hip-push applied in walking race,based on the point of the view on sports biomechanics .With redard to the existing problems,the authors have made an objective analysis on the sports-biomechanics factors that can influence the race,hoping to provide a theoretical basis for the deep development and training of walking race.

Wei-wei Sun; Li-feng Zhang; An-hui Fan

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

158

Table 4.xls  

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

Emission Reductions and Sequestration Reported at Project and Entity Levels, Data Year 2005 Emission Reductions and Sequestration Reported at Project and Entity Levels, Data Year 2005 (Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent) Report Name Sector Reduction Type Project Level Entity Level A&N Electric Cooperative Electric Providers Indirect 6,243 AES Hawaii, Inc. Electric Providers Sequestration 1,540,000 1,540,000 AES SeaWest, Inc. Electric Providers Direct 16 Indirect 220,420 AES Shady Point, LLC Electric Providers Sequestration 4,150,000 4,150,000 AES Thames, LLC Electric Providers Sequestration 410,000 410,000 AES Warrior Run, LLC Electric Providers Direct 41,386 41,386 Alabama Biomass Partners, Ltd Alternative Energy Unspecified (EZ) 77,012 Alcan Primary Products Corporation, Sebree Works Industrial Direct 457,800 457,800 Algonquin Power - Cambrian Pacific Genco LLC Alternative Energy

159

Pushing 1D CCSNe to explosions: model and SN 1987A  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

We report on a method, PUSH, for triggering core-collapse supernova explosions of massive stars in spherical symmetry. We explore basic explosion properties and calibrate PUSH such that the observables of SN1987A are reproduced. Our simulations are based on the general relativistic hydrodynamics code AGILE combined with the detailed neutrino transport scheme IDSA for electron neutrinos and ALS for the muon and tau neutrinos. To trigger explosions in the otherwise non-exploding simulations, we rely on the neutrino-driven mechanism. The PUSH method locally increases the energy deposition in the gain region through energy deposition by the heavy neutrino flavors. Our setup allows us to model the explosion for several seconds after core bounce. We explore the progenitor range 18-21M$_{\\odot}$. Our studies reveal a distinction between high compactness (HC) and low compactness (LC) progenitor models, where LC models tend to explore earlier, with a lower explosion energy, and with a lower remnant mass. HC models are...

Perego, A; Frhlich, C; Ebinger, K; Eichler, M; Casanova, J; Liebendoerfer, M; Thielemann, F -K

2015-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

160

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.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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 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

162

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.

163

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

164

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

165

Supplement Tables - Contacts  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (AEO2000) 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), Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting; Susan H. Holte (sholte@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-4838), Director, Demand and Integration Division; James M. Kendell (jkendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director, Oil and Gas Division; Scott Sitzer (ssitzer@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2308), Director, Coal and Electric Power Division; and Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Modeling Analyst: Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (AEO2000) 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), Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting; Susan H. Holte (sholte@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-4838), Director, Demand and Integration Division; James M. Kendell (jkendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director, Oil and Gas Division; Scott Sitzer (ssitzer@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2308), Director, Coal and Electric Power Division; and Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Modeling Analyst: For ordering information and questions on other energy statistics available from EIA, please contact EIA’s National Energy Information Center. Addresses, telephone numbers, and hours are as follows:

166

Optimum Algorithms for a Model of Direct Chaining  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Direct chaining is a popular and efficient class of hashing algorithms. In this paper we study optimum algorithms among direct chaining methods, under the restrictions that the records in the hash table are not moved after ...

Vitter, Jeffrey Scott; Chen, Wen-Chin

1985-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

167

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

168

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

169

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

170

Previous | Next | Table of Contents Research efforts are directed toward  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

. Using data from surface winds and heat and salt changes in the water, the model produces moving pictures prevention, mitigation, and remediation of harmful consequences. The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement optical depth and the abundance of ozone and water vapor. PNNL Chemical interactions and transformations

Schwartz, Stephen E.

171

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 For Further Information . . . The Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) was prepared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), under the direction of John J. Conti (john.conti@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Director, Integrated Analysis and Forecasting and Acting Director, International, Economic and Greenhouse Gases Division; Paul D. Holtberg (paul.holtberg@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-1284), Director, Demand and Integration Division; Joseph A. Beamon (joseph.beamon@eia.doe.gov, 202-586-2025), Director, Coal and Electric Power Division; James M. Kendell (james.kendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director, Oil and Gas Division; and Andy S. Kydes (andy.kydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Technical Advisor. For ordering information and questions on other energy statistics available from EIA, please contact EIA's National Energy Information Center. Addresses, telephone numbers, and hours are as follows:

172

Supplement Tables - Contacts  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Homepage Homepage For Further Information... The Annual Energy Outlook 2001 (AEO2001) 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), Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting; 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; and Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Modeling Analyst. For ordering information and questions on other energy statistics available from EIA, please contact EIA’s National Energy Information Center. Addresses, telephone numbers, and hours are as follows:

173

EIA - Supplement Tables - Contact  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 For Further Information . . . The Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO2008) was prepared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), under the direction of John J. Conti (john.conti@eia.doe.gov, 202-586-2222), Director, Integrated Analysis and Forecasting; Paul D. Holtberg (paul.holtberg@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-1284), Director, Demand and Integration Division; Joseph A. Beamon (jbeamon@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2025), Director, Coal and Electric Power Division; A. Michael Schaal (michael.schaal@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-5590), Director, Oil and Gas Division; Glen E. Sweetnam (glen.sweetnam@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2188), Director, International, Economic, and Greenhouse Gases Division; and Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Technical Advisor.

174

Table 2.xls  

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

Project-level Reductions and Sequestration Reported, Data Year 2005 Project-level Reductions and Sequestration Reported, Data Year 2005 (Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Indirect 1 85 621 699 3,129 3,411 4,120 3,850 5,988 4,211 6,193 4,890 4,102 6,243 Sequestration 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 Direct 16 Indirect 16,191 14,656 17,745 17,748 17,859 19,897 18,925 21,070 85,711 118,115 156,534 236,368 215,033 214,678 220,420 Sequestration 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 Sequestration 550,000 70,000 290,000 370,000 480,000 440,000 440,000 590,000 530,000 370,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 Direct 1,091 38,702 44,227

175

Using Direct-push Methods for Aquifer Characterization in Dune-lake Environments of The Nebraska Sand Hills  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...techniques. Previous studies of hydraulic tests (Butler et al., 2002...depth for water sampling and hydraulic conductivity data collection...reflect the consistent trend in hydraulic conductivity. Typically...of the DP machine from the trailer, maintenance, refueling...

VITALY A. ZLOTNIK; MARK BURBACH; JAMES SWINEHART; DANUTA BENNETT; SHERILYN C. FRITZ; DAVID B. LOOPE; FRANCIA OLAGUERA

176

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

177

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

178

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...

179

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

180

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

Real-time push middleware and mobile application for electric vehicle smart charging and aggregation  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper presents a real-time push middleware and mobile application for data and multimedia content delivery to enable electric vehicle smart charging and aggregation. Intelligent aggregation and charge scheduling software can leverage the battery capacity of an EV to level peak loads by delaying or throttling charging during peak loads, 'valley fill' during off-peak times, and contribute to demand response and spinning reserves by sending electricity into the grid. EV users are updated on the status of their vehicle and may set their charge parameters via web or native mobile application. Facility and utility operators can monitor and control garage and microgrid status through a separate web or mobile application. The content to facilitate aggregated smart charging and monitoring may come from a variety of sources including web servers, ftp servers, Bluetooth or Zigbee or other protocol sensors, and local or remote databases. The middleware will accept content upload and database storage, securely provide content to outside entities, match content to user subscriptions, use user context including connection speed, device type, and location to deliver appropriately formatted content, and provide a reliable mechanism for push content delivery to a multitude of devices including mobile phones and tablet.

Siddhartha Mal; Rajit Gadh

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

182

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

183

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...

184

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

185

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

186

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

187

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

188

Tank 241-SY-101 push mode core sampling and analysis plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This sampling and analysis plan (SAP) identifies characterization objectives pertaining to sample collection, laboratory analytical evaluation, and reporting requirements for push mode core samples from tank 241-SY-101 (SY-101). It is written in accordance with Data Quality Objective to Support Resolution of the Flammable Gas Safety Issue (Bauer 1998), Low Activity Waste Feed Data Quality Objectives (Wiemers and Miller 1997 and DOE 1998), Data Quality Objectives for TWRS Privatization Phase I: Confirm Tank T is an Appropriate Feed Source for Low-Activity Waste Feed Batch X (Certa 1998), and the Tank Safety Screening Data Quality Objective (Dukelow et al. 1995). The Tank Characterization Technical Sampling Basis document (Brown et al. 1998) indicates that these issues apply to tank SY-101 for this sampling event. Brown et al. also identifies high-level waste, regulatory, pretreatment and disposal issues as applicable issues for this tank. However, these issues will not be addressed via this sampling event.

CONNER, J.M.

1998-10-09T23:59:59.000Z

189

Tank 241-AZ-102 Privatization Push Mode Core Sampling and Analysis Plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This sampling and analysis plan (SAP) identifies characterization objectives pertaining to sample collection, laboratory analytical evaluation, and reporting requirements for samples obtained from tank 241-AZ-102. The purpose of this sampling event is to obtain information about the characteristics of the contents of 241-AZ-102. Push mode core samples will be obtained from risers 15C and 24A to provide sufficient material for the chemical analyses and tests required to satisfy these data quality objectives. The 222-S Laboratory will extrude core samples, composite the liquids and solids, perform chemical analyses, and provide subsamples to the Process Chemistry Laboratory. The Process Chemistry Laboratory will prepare test plans and perform process tests to evaluate the behavior of the 241-AZ-102 waste undergoing the retrieval and treatment scenarios defined in the applicable DQOs. Requirements for analyses of samples originating in the process tests will be documented in the corresponding test plan.

TEMPLETON, A.M.

1999-07-08T23:59:59.000Z

190

Push-pull radio frequency circuit with integral transistion to waveguide output  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A radio frequency circuit for ICRF heating includes a resonant push-pull circuit, a double ridged rectangular waveguide, and a coupling transition which joins the waveguide to the resonant circuit. The resonant circuit includes two cylindrical conductors mounted side by side and two power vacuum tubes attached to respective ends of a cylindrical conductor. A conductive yoke is located at the other end of the cylindrical conductors to short circuit the two cylindrical conductors. The coupling transition includes two relatively flat rectangular conductors extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axes of a respective cylindrical conductor to which the flat conductor is attached intermediate the ends thereof. Conductive side covers and end covers are also provided for forming pockets in the waveguide into which the flat conductors extend when the waveguide is attached to a shielding enclosure surrounding the resonant circuit.

Bennett, Wilfred P. (21 Catskill Ct., Belle Mead, NJ 08502)

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

191

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

192

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

193

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.

194

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.

195

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

196

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

197

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

198

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

199

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

200

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 direct push" 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

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

202

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

203

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

204

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

205

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

206

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

207

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

208

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

209

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

210

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

211

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

212

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

213

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

214

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

215

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

216

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

217

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

218

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

219

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

220

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 direct push" 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

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

222

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

223

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

224

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 ×

225

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

226

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

227

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

228

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

229

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

230

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

231

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

232

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

233

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

234

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

235

Achieving food security for one million sub-Saharan African poor through pushpull innovation by 2020  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...and degraded soils. A platform technology, push-pull...farmers cannot afford such chemical treatments. There are...growth and represents a platform technology around which...reduction in the use of chemical fertilizers [74...CM. 2000 Exploiting chemical ecology and species...

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

236

Femtosecond PumpPushProbe and PumpDumpProbe Spectroscopy of Conjugated Polymers: New Insight and Opportunities  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Femtosecond PumpPushProbe and PumpDumpProbe Spectroscopy of Conjugated Polymers: New Insight and Opportunities ... In 2014, Tapping and Kee reported charge carrier generation by optical pumping of poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT) singlet excitons. ... PBDTTPD is sol. in CHCl3, and in o-dichlorobenzene upon heating, and shows a broad absorption in the visible region. ...

Tak W. Kee

2014-09-03T23:59:59.000Z

237

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

238

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 ........................

239

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 ........................

240

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 ........................

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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_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 ........................

242

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

243

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

244

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

245

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

246

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

247

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

248

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

249

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

250

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

251

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

252

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...

253

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...

254

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...

255

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...

256

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...

257

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...

258

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...

259

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

260

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...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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

262

"RSE Table N5.2. Relative Standard Errors for Table N5.2;"  

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

2. Relative Standard Errors for Table N5.2;" 2. Relative Standard Errors for Table N5.2;" " Unit: Percents." ,,"S e l e c t e d","W o o d","a n d","W o o d -","R e l a t e d","P r o d u c t s" ,,,,,"B i o m a s s" ,,,,,,"Wood Residues" ,,,,,,"and","Wood-Related" " "," ","Pulping Liquor"," "," ","Wood","Byproducts","and",," " "NAICS"," ","or","Biomass","Agricultural","Harvested Directly","from Mill","Paper-Related" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Black Liquor","Total(b)","Waste(c)","from Trees(d)","Processing(e)","Refuse(f)"

263

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

264

Directionally Sensitive Neutron Detector For Homeland Security Applications  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Radiation Portal Monitor SNM Special Nuclear Material US United States vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... of Existing Radiation Portal Monitors............................ 7 II.B. Previous Work in the Field of Directionally Sensitive Detectors ...... 11 III THEORY...

Spence, Grant

2012-02-14T23:59:59.000Z

265

Questions and Answers - How do I read an electron configuration table?  

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

How are electrons placed inshells around the nucleus? How are electrons placed in<br>shells around the nucleus? Previous Question (How are electrons placed in shells around the nucleus?) Questions and Answers Main Index Next Question (What holds an electron around the nucleus?) What holds an electronaround the nucleus? How do I read an electron configuration table? Are you making a model of an atom and need to know how to place the electrons around the nucleus? If so, you will need to know how to read an element's electron configuration table. Follow these easy directions to learn how! What is an electron configuration table? An electron configuration table is a type of code that describes how many electrons are in each energy level of an atom and how the electrons are arranged within each energy level. It packs a lot of information into a

266

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

267

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

268

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...............................................................

269

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...............................

270

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...........................

271

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

272

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...............................................................

273

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

274

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

275

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 .....................

276

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 .....................................

277

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

278

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

279

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

280

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.........................................................

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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.........................................................

282

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...............................................................

283

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

284

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...............................................................

285

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 .....................................

286

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...........................

287

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

288

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

289

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

290

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

291

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

292

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

293

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

294

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...............................

295

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 ...............................

296

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.

297

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

298

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

299

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

300

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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

302

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

303

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.

304

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

305

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...

306

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...

307

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

308

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

309

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

310

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

311

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

312

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

313

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

314

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...........................

315

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 ............................

316

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

317

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

318

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...........................

319

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

320

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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_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 ...........................

322

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

323

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

324

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

325

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

326

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

327

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

328

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 ...........................

329

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

330

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

331

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

332

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

333

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

334

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

335

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

336

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 ............

337

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

338

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

339

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

340

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...................................

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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

342

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

343

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...............

344

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

345

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

346

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

347

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 ............

348

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 ........................

349

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 ............

350

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

351

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

352

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

353

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 ...........................

354

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 --

355

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

356

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

357

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."

358

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.

359

SECTION 49 Table of Contents 49 Lake Rufus Woods Subbasin Inventory of Existing Programs  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

49-1 SECTION 49 ­ Table of Contents 49 Lake Rufus Woods Subbasin Inventory of Existing Programs #12;49-2 49 Lake Rufus Woods Subbasin Inventory of Existing Programs ­ Terrestrial 49.1 Current Management Directions Within the Lake Rufus Woods Subbasin, fish and wildlife resources are co

360

Proc. of the workshop on pushing the limits of RF superconductivity.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

For three days in late September last year, some sixty experts in RF superconductivity from around the world came together at Argonne to discuss how to push the limits of RF superconductivity for particle accelerators. It was an intense workshop with in-depth presentations and ample discussions. There was added excitement due to the fact that, a few days before the workshop, the International Technology Recommendation Panel had decided in favor of superconducting technology for the International Linear Collider (ILC), the next major high-energy physics accelerator project. Superconducting RF technology is also important for other large accelerator projects that are either imminent or under active discussion at this time, such as the Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) for nuclear physics, energy recovery linacs (ERLs), and x-ray free-electron lasers. For these accelerators, the capability in maximum accelerating gradient and/or the Q value is essential to limit the length and/or operating cost of the accelerators. The technological progress of superconducting accelerators during the past two decades has been truly remarkable, both in low-frequency structures for acceleration of protons and ions as well as in high-frequency structures for electrons. The requirements of future accelerators demand an even higher level of performance. The topics of this workshop are therefore highly relevant and timely. The presentations given at the workshop contained authoritative reviews of the current state of the art as well as some original materials that previously had not been widely circulated. We therefore felt strongly that these materials should be put together in the form of a workshop proceeding. The outcome is this report, which consists of two parts: first, a collection of the scholarly papers prepared by some of the participants and second, copies of the viewgraphs of all presentations. The presentation viewgraphs, in full color, are also available from the Workshop Presentations link on the workshop's web page at http://www.aps.anl.gov/conferences/RFSCLimits/. I would like to thank all of the participants for their lively contributions to the workshop and to these proceedings, and Helen Edwards and Hasan Padamsee for their help in developing the workshop program. I also thank Cathy Eyberger, Kelly Jaje, and Renee Lanham for working very hard to take care of the administrative details, in particular Cathy for editing this report.

Kim, K-J., Eyberger, C., editors

2005-04-13T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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...................................................

362

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.

363

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

364

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.........................................................................................................

365

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

366

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

367

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,...

368

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...

369

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...

370

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

371

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.

372

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

373

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

374

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

375

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

376

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

377

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

378

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

379

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

380

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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

382

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...

383

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...

384

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

385

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

386

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

387

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.

388

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.

389

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.

390

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.

391

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"

392

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.

393

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.

394

Directives Help  

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

All DOE directives are available through this site. While it may seem overwhelming, given the number of documents, we have provided a number of ways in which you may get to the information you need.

395

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..................................................................

396

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)

397

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

398

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

399

table5.6_02  

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

6 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; 6 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: End Uses; Column: Energy Sources, including Net Electricity; Unit: Trillion Btu. Distillate Fuel Oil Coal RSE Net Residual and Natural LPG and (excluding Coal Row End Use Total Electricity(a) Fuel Oil Diesel Fuel(b) Gas(c) NGL(d) Coke and Breeze) Other(e) Factors Total United States RSE Column Factors: 1 1 2.4 1.1 1.3 1 0 0 TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 16,273 2,840 208 141 5,794 103 1,182 6,006 3.3 Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel -- 12 127 35 2,162 8 776 -- 5.5 Conventional Boiler Use -- 9 76 25 1,306 8 255 -- 5.6 CHP and/or Cogeneration Process -- 4 51 10 857 * 521 -- 3.7 Direct Uses-Total Process -- 2,218 60 43 2,986 64 381 -- 2.9 Process Heating -- 343

400

table5.2_02  

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

2 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; 2 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National Data; Row: End Uses within NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources, including Net Electricity; Unit: Trillion Btu. Distillate Fuel Oil Coal RSE NAICS Net Residual and Natural LPG and (excluding Coal Row Code(a) End Use Total Electricity(b) Fuel Oil Diesel Fuel(c) Gas(d) NGL(e) Coke and Breeze) Other(f) Factors Total United States 311 - 339 ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES RSE Column Factors: 0.3 1 1 2.4 1.1 1.3 1 NF TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 16,273 2,840 208 141 5,794 103 1,182 6,006 3.3 Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel -- 12 127 25 2,162 8 776 -- 5.5 Conventional Boiler Use -- 9 76 25 1,306 8 255 -- 5.6 CHP and/or Cogeneration Process -- 4 51 10 857 * 521 -- 3.7 Direct Uses-Total Process

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

table5.8_02  

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

8 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; 8 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: End Uses; Column: Energy Sources, including Net Demand for Electricity; Unit: Trillion Btu. Distillate Net Demand Fuel Oil Coal RSE for Residual and Natural LPG and (excluding Coal Row End Use Electricity(a) Fuel Oil Diesel Fuel(b) Gas(c) NGL(d) Coke and Breeze) Factors Total United States RSE Column Factors: 0.3 2.4 1.1 1.3 1 0 TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 3,297 208 141 5,794 103 1,182 3.3 Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel 23 127 35 2,162 8 776 5.5 Conventional Boiler Use 11 76 25 1,306 8 255 5.6 CHP and/or Cogeneration Process 12 51 10 857 * 521 3.7 Direct Uses-Total Process 2,624 60 43 2,986 64 381 2.9 Process Heating 355 58 24 2,742 60 368 3.2

402

table5.4_02  

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

4 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; 4 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National Data; Row: End Uses within NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources, including Net Demand for Electricity; Unit: Trillion Btu. Distillate Net Demand Fuel Oil Coal RSE NAICS for Residual and Natural LPG and (excluding Coal Row Code(a) End Use Electricity(b) Fuel Oil Diesel Fuel(c) Gas(d) NGL(e) Coke and Breeze) Factors Total United States 311 - 339 ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES RSE Column Factors: NF 1 2.4 1.1 1.3 1 TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 3,297 208 141 5,794 103 1,182 3.3 Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel 23 127 25 2,162 8 776 5.5 Conventional Boiler Use 11 76 25 1,306 8 255 5.6 CHP and/or Cogeneration Process 12 51 10 857 * 521 3.7 Direct Uses-Total Process 2,624

403

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

404

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

405

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

406

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.

407

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

408

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

409

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

410

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

411

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...

412

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

413

Current Direct Neutrino Mass Experiments  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

In this contribution we review the status and perspectives of direct neutrino mass experiments. These experiments investigate the kinematics of $\\beta$-decays of specific isotopes ($^3$H, $^{187}$Re, $^{163}$Ho) to derive model-independent information on the averaged electron (anti-) neutrino mass, which is formed by the incoherent sum of the neutrino mass eigenstates contributing to the electron neutrino. We first review the kinematics of $\\beta$-decay and the determination of the neutrino mass, before giving a brief overview of past neutrino mass measurements (SN1987a-ToF studies, Mainz and Troitsk experiments for $^3$H, cryo-bolometers for $^{187}$Re). We then describe the Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino (KATRIN) experiment which is currently under construction at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. The large-scale setup will use the MAC-E-Filter principle pioneered earlier to push the sensitivity down to a value of 200 meV(90% C.L.). KATRIN faces many technological challenges that have to be resolved with regar...

Drexlin, G; Mertens, S; Weinheimer, C

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

414

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

415

Large First Hyperpolarizabilities in Push-Pull Polyenes by Tuning of the Bond Length Alternation and Aromaticity  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...give a table with the average amplitude of s180 variations in the different ice cores. The issue of what sets the Camp Century core apart-including arguments for and against ice elevation changes as a significant influence-has been discussed...

Seth R. Marder; Lap-Tak Cheng; Bruce G. Tiemann; Andrienne C. Friedli; Mireille Blanchard-Desce; Joseph W. Perry; Jrgen Skindhj

1994-01-28T23:59:59.000Z

416

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.

417

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)

418

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...

419

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...

420

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,...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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,...

422

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

423

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

424

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"

425

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"

426

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

427

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

428

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)"

429

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"

430

California schemin': how about direct rebates?  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

California is pushing ahead with its own climate bill to reduce statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Some 75--80 percent of the measures required to meet the 2020 reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be met through the 33 percent renewable portfolio standard (RPS), stringent energy efficiency initiatives, and a long list of other mandatory requirements affecting the transport sector. The balance will be met through market- and pricing-oriented mechanisms, including auctioning of GHG emission permits. In early January, an advisory committee proposed that roughly 75 percent of the collected proceeds should be distributed directly to households with the balance used to assist badly affected industries, especially those with few options to transition to a lower carbon regime.

NONE

2010-03-15T23:59:59.000Z

431

Integrated pest management: the pushpull approach for controlling insect pests and weeds of cereals, and its potential for other agricultural systems including animal husbandry  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...integrated pest management Clearly, by...hypothesis-driven science, new technologies...expression, this approach could help to...parasitic wasps. Science. 250, 1251-1253...10.1126/science.250.4985...integrated pest management and chemical...the push-pull approach for controlling...

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

432

JY Tsao Evolution of Solid-State Lighting: Market Pull and Technology Push Xiamen 2005 Apr 13 Evolution of Solid-State Lighting  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and Technology Push · Xiamen · 2005 Apr 13 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 Incandescent (12%) Fluorescent Fluorescent Standard Incandescent · So let's start with traditional lighting. · Here, I've plotted the 26 and Eugene Hong of Navigant Consulting. The lamps fall into three overall families: incandescent, in green

433

February 20, 2014 10:20 World Scientific Review Volume -9.75in x 6.5in FangPilipenkoSW Additive functionals and push forward measures under  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Additive functionals and push forward measures under Veretennikov's flow Shizan Fang and Andrey Pilipenko S, Ukraine Dedicated to Professor Masatoshi Fukushima with admiration In this work, we will be interested in the push forward measure (t), where t is defined by the stochastic differential equation dt(x) = dWt + a

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

434

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

435

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 -- -- --

436

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

437

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

438

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

439

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

440

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.......................

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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

442

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............................................

443

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

444

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

445

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................................................

446

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

447

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

448

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

449

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

450

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

451

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

452

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

453

Direct costing  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

oau 5e reduced. Under the same oonOitions, even ~Me on a bread scale entails not mere1y the conduct of the direct oyeraticns cf yrccessing the materials into finished products, but also the performance of auxiliary functions. these may 'ba power y... purposes have been advanced as folkway le Most of a o03RyaxO' 8 products Grc usual13r sold at prices which oovex' full product costs y plus 861ling a%el administrative expenses, plus normal profit. The inventoi~ valuate. on should be consistent...

Browning, Donald Bullock

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

454

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.

455

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:

456

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

457

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

458

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

459

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

460

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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

462

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

463

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

464

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

465

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

466

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.

467

Evaluation of the In Situ Aerobic Cometabolism of Chlorinated Ethenes by Toluene-Utilizing Microorganisms Using Push-Pull Tests  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Single-well-push-pull tests were used in a contaminated aquifer to evaluate the ability of toluene-oxidizing microorganisms to aerobically cometabolize chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons (CAHs) such as trichloroethene (TCE). Groundwater containing dissolved toluene was injected into the saturated zone in biostimulate indigenous toluene-utilizers. The test solution was injected into the aquifer using a standard monitoring well and then was transported under natural-gradient conditions. Transport tests demonstrated similar transport characteristics of the conservative tracer and the reactive solutes. Biostimulation tests were then performed by injecting a test solution containing dissolved toluene substrate, hydrogen peroxide, bromide and nitrate in order to increase the biomass of toluene-utilizing microorganisms. During the biostimulation tests, decreases in toluene concentration and the production of o-cresol as an intermediate oxidation product, indicated the simulation of toluene-utilizing microorganisms containing an ortho-monooxygenase enzyme. Transformation tests conducted after biostimulation demonstrated that indigenous microorganisms have the capability to transform the surrogate compounds (e.g. isobutene). Isobutene was transformed to isobutene oxide, indicating transformation by a toluene ortho-monooxygenase.

Azizian, Mohammad F.; Istok, Jonathan; Semprini, Lewis

2004-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

468

LCLS CDR Appendix A - Parameter Tables  

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

Y direction 0.5 mm Supporting pillar alignment: Z direction 2.0 mm Pitch, roll and yaw of pillars 0.75 mrad Undulator vertical and horizontal remote 2.0 mm Undulator...

469

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

470

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

471

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

472

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

473

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,

474

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

475

Table 3.6 Selected Wood and Wood-Related Products in Fuel Consumption, 2010;  

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

Table 3.6 Selected Wood and Wood-Related Products in Fuel Consumption, 2010; Table 3.6 Selected Wood and Wood-Related Products in Fuel Consumption, 2010; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: Selected NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources; Unit: Trillion Btu. Wood Residues and Wood-Related Pulping Liquor Wood Byproducts and NAICS or Biomass Agricultural Harvested Directly from Mill Paper-Related Code(a) Subsector and Industry Black Liquor Total(b) Waste(c) from Trees(d) Processing(e) Refuse(f) Total United States 311 Food 0 44 43 * * 1 311221 Wet Corn Milling 0 1 1 0 0 0 312 Beverage and Tobacco Products 0 1 0 0 1 0 321 Wood Products 0 218 * 13 199 6 321113 Sawmills 0 100 * 5 94 1 3212 Veneer, Plywood, and Engineered Woods 0 95 * 6 87 2 321219 Reconstituted Wood Products 0 52 0 6 46 1 3219 Other Wood Products

476

DOE-HDBK-1086-95; Table-Top Training Program Design  

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

86-95 86-95 April 1995 DOE HANDBOOK TABLE-TOP TRAINING PROGRAM DESIGN U.S. Department of Energy FSC-6910 Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. ERRATA SHEET No. 1 DOE-HDBK-1086-95 Table-Top Training Program Design Page/Section Change Page iii, FOREWORD Delete reference to DOE 5480.18B, Nuclear Facility Training Accreditation Program, and update preparing organization from EH-31 to EH-53 Page 3, Section 2.1.2 Delete reference to DOE 5480.18B, Nuclear Facility Training Accreditation Program. Concluding Material The Preparing Activity was updated from EH-31 to EH-53. This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and

477

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.

478

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

479

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

480

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table direct push" 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

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

482

u c l a Col le g e R e p or t 27 In the push to develop practical hydrogen fuel cells  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

u c l a Col le g e R e p or t 27 In the push to develop practical hydrogen fuel cells to power cars such as a MOF would store hydrogen and release it into a fuel cell," Yaghi said. "Molecules can go in and out that practical hydrogen fuel will require concentra- tions of at least 6.5 percent, the UCLA team has achieved

Grether, Gregory

483

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...

484

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,...

485

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,...

486

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...

487

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

488

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...

489

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...

490

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...

491

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...

492

,"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...

493

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

494

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 ......

495

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

496

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

497

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

498

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...

499

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) -...

500

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) -...