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

FY 2007 State Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Department of Energy FY 2007 Congressional Budget Request February 2006 Office of Chief Financial Officer state tables preliminary Department of Energy FY 2007 Congressional Budget...

2

FY 2009 State Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

3

FY 2005 State Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

4

FY 2010 State Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

5

FY 2006 State Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

6

FY 2008 State Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

7

FY 2011 State Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

8

FY 2012 State Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

9

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3 165 3 165 Appendix B Metric and Thermal Conversion Tables Metric Conversions Table B1 presents Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States for 1999 through 2003 in metric units of measure. Volumes are shown in cubic meters instead of cubic feet. Prices are shown in dollars per thousand cubic meters instead of dollars per thousand cubic feet. The data in this table have been converted from the data that appear in Table 1 of this report. Thermal Conversions Table B2 presents the thermal (Btu) conversion factors and the converted data for natural gas supply and disposition from 1999 through 2003. A brief documentation for the thermal conversion factors follows: * Marketed Production. The conversion factor is calculated by adding the total heat content of dry

10

Table 11: Dry natural gas proved reserves, reserves changes,...  

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

Sales","Acquisitions","Extensions","Discoveries","in Old Fields","Production","Reserves" "State and Subdivision",40543,"(+,-)","(+)","(-)","(-)","(+)","(+)","(+)","(+)","(-)",40908...

11

Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization State of the Art Survey  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The intent of this report is to provide a summary of state-of-the-art dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) technologies, including circulating dry scrubbers (CDS), spray dryer absorbers (SDA), and the Alstom Novel Integrated Desulfurization (NID) technology. These can all be considered semi-dry technologies, as the flue gas is cooled and humidified as part of each of these processes. This report also discusses a completely dry FGD technology, dry sorbent injection (DSI), which is ...

2012-12-14T23:59:59.000Z

12

Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion...  

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

Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

13

California State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) California State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

14

,"Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion...  

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

Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2011 ,"Release...

15

,"California State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves ...  

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

Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2011...

16

,"Texas State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion...  

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

,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2011...

17

Table C5. Residential Propane Prices by Region and State ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table C5. Residential Propane Prices by Region and State (Cents per Gallon) ... New York 141.9 145.6 146.4 150.4 153.7 162.1 164.5 168.1 169.0 190.2 ...

18

State Historical Tables for 2001 - 2003  

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

3 3 Released: November 23, 2010" "YEAR","STATE","ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY","OPERATING REVENUE (Dollars)","OPERATING EXPENSES (Dollars)","MAINTENANCE (Dollars)","DEPRECIATION (Dollars)","AMORTIZATION (Dollars)","TAXES (Dollars)","INCOME (Dollars) " 2001,"AK","Public Generating Utilities",111943315,102264618,9387481,39295128,514986,3739749,9678697 2001,"AR","Public Generating Utilities",246368630,212622546,9431249,22420097,0,16915413,33746084 2001,"AZ","Public Generating Utilities",3030812753,2527544405,147926114,220490131,248061352,80336985,503268348 2001,"CA","Public Generating Utilities",8603693112,7493606346,361997320,674090424,77723284,44864971,1110086766

19

State Historical Tables for 2001 - 2004  

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

4 4 Released: November 23, 2010 " "YEAR","STATE","ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY ","OPERATING REVENUE (Dollars)","OPERATING EXPENSES (Dollars)","MAINTENANCE (Dollars)","DEPRECIATION (Dollars)","AMORTIZATION (Dollars)","TAXES (Dollars)","INCOME (Dollars) " 2001,"AL","PUBLIC NON-GENERATING UTILITIES",929668740,876713550,23552342,28323485,21902,27740202,52955190 2001,"AR","PUBLIC NON-GENERATING UTILITIES",77541291,65685734,1885725,3099876,0,1918230,11855557 2001,"AZ","PUBLIC NON-GENERATING UTILITIES",86297510,75606888,989560,7217552,0,0,10690622 2001,"CA","PUBLIC NON-GENERATING UTILITIES",415854281,350700190,15665358,13782510,0,13671867,65154091

20

Table 11. Dry natural gas proved reserves, reserves changes, and production, 2011  

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

: Dry natural gas proved reserves, reserves changes, and production, 2011 : Dry natural gas proved reserves, reserves changes, and production, 2011 billion cubic feet Published New Reservoir Proved Revision Revision New Field Discoveries Estimated Proved Reserves Adjustments Increases Decreases Sales Acquisitions Extensions Discoveries in Old Fields Production Reserves State and Subdivision 12/31/10 (+,-) (+) (-) (-) (+) (+) (+) (+) (-) 12/31/11 Alaska 8,838 -1 928 206 36 221 4 0 3 327 9,424 Lower 48 States 295,787 1,732 52,673 53,267 43,150 46,020 45,905 947 1,224 23,228 324,643 Alabama 2,629 -49 455 157 573 383 3 2 0 218 2,475 Arkansas 14,178 728 631 324 6,760 6,880 2,093 0 23 1,079 16,370 California 2,647 923 1,486 1,889 47 52 73 0 0 311 2,934 Coastal Region Onshore 173 13 20 31 0 0 1 0 0 11 165 Los Angeles Basin Onshore 87 7 11 4 0 2 0 0 0 6 97 San Joaquin Basin Onshore 2,321 902 1,444 1,854 45 42 69 0 0 289 2,590 State Offshore

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


21

Table  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Table 295: Muons in water as calc from steam to check code ZA gcm 3 I eV a k m s x 0 x 1 C 0 0.55509 1.000 71.6 0.44251 3.0000 0.2000 2.0000 3.5017 0.00 T p...

22

Table  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Air (dry, 1 atm) ZA 0.49919 E GeV b brems b pair b nucl b tot 2. 0.2898 0.1282 0.4628 0.8808 5. 0.3927 0.3151 0.4901 1.1979 10. 0.4774 0.4735 0.4758 1.4267 20. 0.5663 0.6460...

23

Table 7. Carbon intensity of the energy supply by state (2000...  

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

"Table 7. Carbon intensity of the energy supply by state (2000 - 2010)" "kilograms of energy-related carbon dioxide per million Btu" ,,,"Change" ,,,"2000 to 2010"...

24

Continental U.S. State Wind Resource Potential Tables (RDF Transformat...  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Continental U.S. State Wind Resource Potential Tables (RDF Transformation) Submitted by Woodjr on Fri, 02042011 - 14:19 A linked data (RDF) transformation of the...

25

Table HC5-7a. Appliances by Four Most Populated States, Million U ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table HC5-7a. Appliances by Four Most Populated States, Million U.S. Households, 2001 Appliance Types and Characteristics RSE Column Factor: Total

26

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

49 49 0.00-1.99 2.00-3.99 4.00-5.99 6.00-7.99 8.00-9.99 10.00-11.99 12.00+ WA ID MT OR CA NV UT AZ NM CO WY ND SD MN WI NE IA KS MO TX IL IN OH MI OK AR TN WV VA KY PA WI NY VT NH MA CT ME RI NJ DE DC NC SC GA AL MS LA FL HI AK MD 0.00-1.99 2.00-3.99 4.00-5.99 6.00-7.99 8.00-9.99 10.00-11.99 12.00+ WA ID MT OR CA NV UT AZ NM CO WY ND SD MN WI NE IA KS MO TX IL IN OH MI OK AR TN WV VA KY MD PA WI NY VT NH MA CT ME RI NJ DE DC NC SC GA AL MS LA FL HI AK Figure 18. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to U.S. Onsystem Industrial Consumers, 2003 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Figure 19. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to U.S. Electric Power Consumers, 2003 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition." Note: States where the electric power price has been withheld (see Table 23) are included in the $0.00-$1.99 price category.

27

Table  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

28

Table  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

29

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Gross Withdrawals Year and State From Gas Wells From Oil Wells Total Repressuring Vented And Flared Nonhydro- carbon Gases Removed Marketed Production Extraction Loss Dry Production 1999 Total ................ 17,590,187 6,232,524 23,822,711 3,292,564 110,285 615,014 19,804,848 972,614 18,832,234 2000 Total ................ 17,726,056 6,447,820 24,173,875 3,379,661 91,232 505,472 20,197,511 1,015,542 19,181,969 2001 Total ................ 18,129,408 6,371,371 24,500,779 3,370,832 96,913 462,738 20,570,295 953,984 19,616,311 2002 Total ................ R 17,794,858 R 6,146,420 R 23,941,279 3,455,145 R 99,178 502,176 R 19,884,780 956,992 R 18,927,788 2003 Total ................ 17,819,244 6,237,176 24,056,420 3,547,781 98,113 498,724 19,911,802 875,816 19,035,986 Alabama Total

30

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Natural Gas Natural Gas Supplies Energy Information Administration / Natural Gas Annual 2003 6 Gross Withdrawals Year and State From Gas Wells From Oil Wells Total Repressuring Vented And Flared Nonhydro- carbon Gases Removed Marketed Production Extraction Loss Dry Production 1999 Total ................ 17,590,187 6,232,524 23,822,711 3,292,564 110,285 615,014 19,804,848 972,614 18,832,234 2000 Total ................ 17,726,056 6,447,820 24,173,875 3,379,661 91,232 505,472 20,197,511 1,015,542 19,181,969 2001 Total ................ 18,129,408 6,371,371 24,500,779 3,370,832 96,913 462,738 20,570,295 953,984 19,616,311 2002 Total ................ R 17,794,858 R 6,146,420 R 23,941,279 3,455,145 R 99,178 502,176 R 19,884,780 956,992 R 18,927,788 2003 Total ................ 17,819,244 6,237,176 24,056,420 3,547,781

31

Comprehensive tables giving physical data and thermal energy estimates for young igneous systems of the United States  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Two tables are presented. The first is a comprehensive table of 157 young igneous systems in the western United States, giving locations, physical data, and thermal energy estimates, where appropriate for each system. The second table is a list of basaltic fields probably less than 10,000 years old in the western United States.

Smith, R.L.; Shaw, H.R.; Leudke, R.G.; Russell, S.L.

1978-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

32

Table 39. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by State as of January 1, 2003  

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

State/Refiner/Location Alkylates Aromatics State/Refiner/Location Alkylates Aromatics Isobutane Lubricants Isomers Isopentane and Isohexane Asphalt and Road Oil Marketable Petroleum Coke Hydrogen (MMcfd) Sulfur (short tons per day) Table 4. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by State as of January 1, 2013 (Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) Isooctane a

33

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Appendix - Table B1 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells Producing at End of Year ................................... 302,421 341,678 373,304 R 387,772 393,327 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells................................................ 498,099 501,946 513,368 R 503,894 504,585 From Oil Wells.................................................. 176,485 182,582 180,417 R 174,047 176,617 Total................................................................... 674,584 684,528 693,785 R 677,942 681,202 Repressuring ...................................................... 93,235 95,701 95,451 97,839 100,462 Vented and Flared.............................................. 3,123 2,583 2,744

34

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 State Federal Year and State From Gas Wells From Oil Wells Total From Gas Wells From Oil Wells Total Total Offshore 1999 Total... 527,126 31,566 558,692 4,225,452...

35

TABLE 1. Nuclear Reactor, State, Type, Net Capacity ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Nuclear Reactor, State, Type, Net Capacity, ... Quad Cities Generating Station River Bend San Onofre Seabrook Sequoyah South Texas Project St Lucie ...

36

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

2 State Residential Commercial Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Alabama... 0.92 0.79 2.22 0.52 1.68 Alaska... 0.33...

37

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 Volume State State or Country From/To Receipts/ Imports From Deliveries/ Exports To Net a Alabama Florida................................................................... 0 682,935 -682,935 Georgia ................................................................. 0 1,441,380 -1,441,380 Gulf of Mexico ....................................................... 131,698 0 131,698 Mississippi............................................................. 2,929,279 0 2,929,279 Tennessee ............................................................ 1,602 951,228 -949,625 Total ..................................................................... 3,062,579 3,075,542 -12,963

38

Table 6. Energy intensity by state (2000 - 2010  

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

Energy intensity by state (2000 - 2010)" Energy intensity by state (2000 - 2010)" "thousand Btu per dollar of GDP" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"Change" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"2000 to 2010" "State",2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,"Percent","Absolute" "Alabama",18.27258197,17.12573602,17.40982338,17.21199023,16.87274619,16.36600572,16.26201029,16.16667416,15.88996309,15.31511861,15.97051076,-0.1259849985,-2.302071213 "Alaska",21.74118991,20.61708506,19.78031734,20.18143227,20.28953911,21.09573287,18.72961653,17.79373817,15.85124571,14.13669694,14.24461661,-0.3448097058,-7.496573297 "Arizona",8.723022426,8.474435286,8.399371812,7.993493579,8.274516227,7.602521438,7.232690272,7.328159916,7.62679414,7.507000095,7.628169778,-0.1255129924,-1.094852647

39

Candidate Sites For Future Hot Dry Rock Development In The United States |  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Candidate Sites For Future Hot Dry Rock Development In The United States Candidate Sites For Future Hot Dry Rock Development In The United States Jump to: navigation, search GEOTHERMAL ENERGYGeothermal Home Journal Article: Candidate Sites For Future Hot Dry Rock Development In The United States Details Activities (8) Areas (4) Regions (0) Abstract: Generalized geologic and other data are tabulated for 24 potential hot dry rock (HDR) sites in the contiguous United States. The data show that HDR resources occur in many geologic and tectonic settings. Potential reservoir rocks at each prospect are described and each system is categorized according to inferred heat sources. The Fenton Hill area in New Mexico is discussed in detail because this region may be considered ideal for HDR development. Three other prospectively valuable localities are

40

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

20 20 Natural Gas Movements and Storage Energy Information Administration/Natural Gas Annual 2003 21 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Natural Gas Division. Figure 7. Principal Interstate Natural Gas Flow Summary, 2003 Billion Cubic Feet 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 = Direction of flow = Bi-directional Energy Information Administration / Natural Gas Annual 2003 22 Volume State State or Country From/To Receipts/ Imports From Deliveries/ Exports To Net a Alabama Florida................................................................... 0 682,935 -682,935 Georgia ................................................................. 0 1,441,380 -1,441,380 Gulf of Mexico

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

Glossary Term - Dry Ice  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Deuteron Previous Term (Deuteron) Glossary Main Index Next Term (Electron) Electron Dry Ice A block of dry ice sublimating on a table. Dry ice is the solid form of carbon dioxide...

42

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

43 Natural Gas Consumer Prices Energy Information Administration / Natural Gas Annual 2003 44 0 2 4 6 8 10 Residential Commercial Onsystem Industrial Onsystem Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Dollars per Thousand Cubic Meters 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 13. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in the United States, 1999-2003 Note: Prices are calculated from onsystem sales in all States and sectors except in Georgia, Maryland, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where prices reflect all deliveries in the residential and commercial sectors. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition"; Federal Energy Regulatory

43

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 Residential Commercial Onsystem Industrial Onsystem Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Dollars per Thousand Cubic Meters 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 13. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in the United States, 1999-2003 Note: Prices are calculated from onsystem sales in all States and sectors except in Georgia, Maryland, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where prices reflect all deliveries in the residential and commercial sectors. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition"; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Form FERC-423, "Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants"; and Form EIA-910, "Monthly Natural Gas Marketer Survey

44

FPEOS: A First-Principles Equation of State Table of Deuterium for Inertial Confinement Fusion Applications  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

FPEOS: A First-Principles Equation of State Table of Deuterium for Inertial Confinement Fusion) Understanding and designing inertial confinement fusion (ICF) implosions through radiation- hydrodynamics. To minimize the drive energy for ignition, the imploding shell of DT- fuel needs to be kept as cold

Militzer, Burkhard

45

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Salt Caverns Aquifers Depleted Fields Total State Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Percent of U.S. Capacity Aquifers Salt Caverns Depleted Fields Alabama ................. 1 8 0 0 1 3 2 11 0.13 Arkansas ................ 0 0 0 0 2 22 2 22 0.27 California ................ 0 0 0 0 8 446 8 446 5.44 Colorado................. 0 0 0 0 9 101 9 101 1.23 Illinois ..................... 0 0 17 767 12 206 29 972 11.85 Indiana ................... 0 0 12 81 11 32 23 114 1.38 Iowa ....................... 0 0 4 273 0 0 4 273 3.33 Kansas ................... 1 1 0 0 17 287 18 288 3.51 Kentucky ................ 0 0 3 10 20 211 23 221 2.69 Louisiana................ 6 61 0 0 8 530 14 592 7.21

46

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Reported Wellhead Value Year and State Volume a (million cubic feet) Value (thousand dollars) Average Wellhead Price (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Marketed Production (million cubic feet) Imputed Wellhead Value of Marketed Production b (thousand dollars) 1999 Total ............................... 18,595,208 -- 2.19 19,804,848 43,324,690 2000 Total ............................... 17,251,333 -- 3.68 20,197,511 74,338,958 2001 Total ............................... 19,577,660 -- 4.00 20,570,295 82,202,805 2002 Total ............................... R 14,467,289 -- 2.95 R 19,884,780 R 58,596,868 2003 Total ............................... 14,589,545 -- 4.88 19,911,802 97,249,837 Alabama .................................. 348,722 2,066,575 5.93 346,145 2,051,308 Alaska......................................

47

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 State Synthetic Natural Gas Propane- Air Refinery Gas Biomass Gas Other Total Alabama ................ 0 22 0 0 0 22 Colorado ................ 0 23 0 0 5,385 5,409 Connecticut............ 0 57 0 0 0 57 Delaware ............... 0 7 0 0 0 7 Georgia.................. 0 14 0 0 0 14 Hawaii.................... 2,602 0 0 0 0 2,602 Illinois .................... 0 49 0 3 0 52 Indiana................... 0 102 0 0 2,274 2,376 Iowa....................... 0 118 0 25 0 143 Kentucky................ 0 98 0 0 0 98 Maryland................ 0 160 0 0 0 160 Maine..................... 0 6 0 0 0 6 Massachusetts....... 0 253 0 0 0 253 Minnesota .............. 0 42 0 0 0 42 Missouri ................. 0 1,056 0 0 0 1,056 Nebraska ............... 0 13 0 0 0 13 New Jersey............ 0 0 0 0 473 473 North Carolina ....... 0 1 0

48

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Residential Commercial Industrial Year and State Volume (million cubic feet) Consumers Volume (million cubic feet) Consumers Volume (million cubic feet) Consumers 1999 Total ................... 4,725,672 58,223,229 3,044,658 5,010,189 8,079,359 228,331 2000 Total ................... 4,996,179 59,252,728 3,182,469 5,010,817 8,142,240 220,251 2001 Total ................... 4,771,340 60,286,364 3,022,712 4,996,446 7,344,219 217,026 2002 Total ................... R 4,888,816 R 61,107,254 R 3,144,169 R 5,064,384 R 7,507,180 R 205,915 2003 Total ................... 5,078,197 61,857,913 3,216,660 5,150,925 7,139,029 205,457 Alabama ...................... 46,566 809,002 25,447 65,313 158,536 2,744 Alaska.......................... 16,853 100,404 17,270 14,502 66,503 10 Arizona ........................

49

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year and State Marketed Production Extraction Loss Balancing Item a Net Interstate Movements b Net Movements Across U.S. Borders b Net Storage Changes c Supplemental Gas Supplies Consumption Alabama .................... 346,145 11,293 32,755 -12,963 0 4,212 22 350,454 Alaska........................ 489,757 33,316 47,520 0 -64,389 0 0 439,572 Arizona ...................... 443 0 -8,561 307,249 -26,205 0 0 272,926 Arkansas.................... 169,599 320 -1,527 79,114 0 -51 0 246,917 California ................... 337,216 13,971 -3,834 1,959,883 -60,857 709 0 2,217,727 Colorado .................... 1,011,285 33,650 -4,231 -541,798 0 759 5,409 436,257 Connecticut................ 0 0 -4,901 158,780 0 -140 57 154,076 District Of Columbia... 0 0 -1,652 34,467 0 0 0 32,815 Delaware ...................

50

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Average Price State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Alabama............................... 3.21 4.50 6.63 4.74 6.06 Alaska .................................. 1.32 1.60 2.32 2.36 2.33 Arizona................................. 2.72 4.82 5.02 3.77 4.87 Arkansas.............................. 2.81 4.16 6.11 5.17 6.07 California.............................. 2.61 4.32 6.64 3.20 5.16 Colorado .............................. 2.31 3.53 4.25 2.72 4.11 Connecticut .......................... 4.91 6.73 8.12 6.42 5.59 Delaware.............................. 3.45 3.41 5.16 5.37 5.88 Florida.................................. 3.49 5.10 5.28 3.90 5.87 Georgia ................................ 2.95 4.64 6.02 4.55 6.25 Hawaii .................................. 5.62 8.41 7.86 7.17 8.63 Idaho....................................

51

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

WA WA MT ID OR WY ND SD CA NV UT CO NE KS AZ NM OK TX MN WI MI IA IL IN OH MO AR MS AL GA TN KY FL SC NC WV MD DE VA PA NJ NY CT RI MA VT NH ME LA HI AK Japan Mexico Mexico Algeria Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Canada Algeria Mexico Trinidad Canada Canada Nigeria Oman Qatar Trinidad Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico Canada Trinidad Trinidad Gulf of Mexico Malaysia 13,623 Figure 8. Interstate Movements of Natural Gas in the United States, 2003 (Million Cubic Feet) Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition." Energy Information Administration / Natural Gas Annual 2003 Supplemental Data From Volume To From Volume To CT RI RI MA MA CT VA DC MD DC 366,224 655,731 666,614 633,960 144,284 43,869 536,776 63,133 36,848

52

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Residential Commercial Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power State Average Price Percent of Total Volume Delivered Average Price Percent of Total Volume Delivered Average Price Percent of Total Volume Delivered Average Price Average Price Alabama ..................... 11.81 99.98 10.07 81.91 6.64 21.24 -- 5.80 Alaska......................... 4.39 100.00 3.58 59.09 1.75 82.81 -- 2.33 Arizona ....................... 11.31 98.89 7.84 90.70 6.54 39.95 5.65 5.14 Arkansas .................... 10.33 100.00 7.67 81.88 6.94 5.35 5.28 4.37 California .................... 9.13 99.56 8.15 62.34 7.19 5.47 5.76 5.49 Colorado..................... 6.61 99.99 5.93 95.34 4.46 0.93 4.16 4.38 Connecticut................. 12.77 98.73 10.47 68.14 7.52 45.33 10.72 W

53

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 State Volume Price Volume Price Volume Price Volume Price Volume Price Pipeline (Canada) Eastport, ID..................... 800,345 2.04 830,351 3.79 802,182 4.71 759,647 2.83 623,635 4.72 Calais, ME ...................... NA NA 123,521 4.50 152,486 4.47 124,991 3.49 108,342 5.86 Detroit, MI ....................... 7,671 2.51 6,171 3.82 405 9.34 1,948 3.56 2,514 5.96 Marysville, MI.................. 135 2.06 NA NA NA NA 74 3.95 NA NA St. Clair, MI..................... 33,388 2.62 17,198 4.45 21,747 4.54 28,441 3.19 5,202 5.84 International Falls, MN .... 4,857 2.33 3,022 2.77 617 4.85 602 3.01 NA NA Noyes, MN...................... 506,866 2.29 469,361 3.75 448,898 4.19 402,621 3.09 359,640 5.04 Warroad, MN .................. 412 2.06 4,576 3.95 5,318

54

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

55

All Consumption Tables  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

2010 Consumption Summary Tables. Table C1. Energy Consumption Overview: Estimates by Energy Source and End-Use Sector, 2010 (Trillion Btu) ... Ranked by State, 2010

56

Table 9. Total U.S. proved reserves of wet natural gas and dry natural gas, 2001-2011  

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

: Total U.S. proved reserves of wet natural gas and dry natural gas, 2001-2011 : Total U.S. proved reserves of wet natural gas and dry natural gas, 2001-2011 billion cubic feet Revisions a Net of Sales b New Reservoir Proved d Change Net and and New Field Discoveries Total c Estimated Reserves from Adjustments Revisions Adjustments Acquisitions Extensions Discoveries in Old Fields Discoveries Production 12/31 Prior Year Year (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Wet Natural Gas (billion cubic feet) 2001 1,849 -2,438 -589 2,715 17,183 3,668 2,898 23,749 20,642 191,743 5,233 2002 4,006 1,038 5,044 428 15,468 1,374 1,752 18,594 20,248 195,561 3,818 2003 2,323 -1,715 608 1,107 17,195 1,252 1,653 20,100 20,231 197,145 1,584 2004 170 825 995 1,975 19,068 790 1,244 21,102 20,017 201,200 4,055 2005 1,693 2,715 4,408 2,674 22,069 973 1,243 24,285 19,259 213,308 12,108 2006 946 -2,099 -1,153 3,178 22,834 425 1,197 24,456 19,373 220,416

57

The xerolithic geothermal (``hot dry rock``) energy resource of the United States: An update  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

This report presents revised estimates, based upon the most current geothermal gradient data, of the xerolithic geothermal (``hot dry rock`` or HDR) energy resources of the United States. State-by-state tabular listings are provided of the HDR energy resource base, the accessible resource base, and the potentially useful resource base. The latter further subdivided into components with potential for electricity generation, process heat, and space heat. Comparisons are made with present estimates of fossil fuel reserves. A full-sized geothermal gradient contour map is provided as a supplement in a pocket inside the back cover of the report.

Nunz, G.J.

1993-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

58

Lower 48 States Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)  

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

Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 175,170 175,988 168,738 1980's 165,639 168,693 166,522 165,964 162,987 159,522 158,922 153,986 158,946 158,177 1990's 160,046 157,509 155,377 152,508 154,104 155,649 157,180 156,661 154,114 157,672 2000's 168,190 174,660 178,478 180,759 184,106 196,214 200,840 225,809 236,957 263,408 2010's 295,787 324,643 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/1/2013 Next Release Date: 8/1/2014 Referring Pages: Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31

59

Table 1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, 2007-2011  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, 2007-2011 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year 452,945 476,652 493,100 487,627 514,637 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells R 14,991,891 R 15,134,644 R 14,414,287 R 13,247,498 12,291,070 From Oil Wells R 5,681,871 R 5,609,425 R 5,674,120 R 5,834,703 5,907,919 From Coalbed Wells R 1,999,748 R 2,022,228 R 2,010,171 1,916,762 1,779,055 From Shale Gas Wells 1,990,145 R 2,869,960 R 3,958,315 5,817,122 8,500,983 Total 24,663,656 25,636,257 26,056,893 R 26,816,085 28,479,026 Repressuring 3,662,685 3,638,622 3,522,090 3,431,587 3,365,313 Vented and Flared 143,457 166,909 165,360

60

Table 23. Coal Mining Productivity by State, Mine Type, and Mine Production Range, 2012  

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

Mining Productivity by State, Mine Type, and Mine Production Range, 2012 Mining Productivity by State, Mine Type, and Mine Production Range, 2012 (short tons produced per employee hour) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2012 Table 23. Coal Mining Productivity by State, Mine Type, and Mine Production Range, 2012 (short tons produced per employee hour) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2012 Mine Production Range (thousand short tons) Coal-Producing State, Region 1 and Mine Type Above 1,000 Above 500 to 1,000 Above 200 to 500 Above 100 to 200 Above 50 to 100 Above 10 to 50 10 or Under Total 2 Alabama 1.69 2.50 1.95 1.72 1.83 0.69 0.55 1.68 Underground 1.73 - - - 1.08 0.31 - 1.64 Surface 1.36 2.50 1.95 1.72 2.11 1.19 0.55 1.75 Alaska 5.98 - - - - - - 5.98 Surface 5.98 - - - - - - 5.98 Arizona 7.38 - - - - - - 7.38 Surface

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

How trehalose protects DNA in the dry state: a molecular dynamics simulation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Molecular dynamics simulations were conducted on a system consisting of a decamer DNA solvated by trehalose and water (molecular ratio= 1:2), to mimic a relatively dry state for the DNA molecule. Simulations were performed at two different temperatures, 300 K and 450 K. The B-form DNA structure was shown to be stable at both temperatures. The analysis of hydrogen bonds between trehalose/water and DNA revealed that trehalose and backbone DNA formed the largest number of hydrogen bonds and thus constituted the major effect of structural protection for DNA. The number of hydrogen bonds formed by each OH group of trehalose with the backbone DNA was compared. Different types of trehalose-DNA interactions were analyzed, with no prevalent pattern recognized. Diffusion constants for trehalose and water were also calculated, suggesting a glassy/viscose state of the simulation system. It is believed that trehalose protects DNA in the dry state through the network of hydrogen bonds built by the sugars, which reduces the structural fluctuations of DNA and prevents its denaturation.

Fu, Xuebing

2008-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

62

High-order nite volume WENO schemes for the shallow water equations with dry states  

SciTech Connect

The shallow water equations are used to model flows in rivers and coastal areas, and have wide applications in ocean, hydraulic engineering, and atmospheric modeling. These equations have still water steady state solutions in which the flux gradients are balanced by the source term. It is desirable to develop numerical methods which preserve exactly these steady state solutions. Another main difficulty usually arising from the simulation of dam breaks and flood waves flows is the appearance of dry areas where no water is present. If no special attention is paid, standard numerical methods may fail near dry/wet front and produce non-physical negative water height. A high-order accurate finite volume weighted essentially non-oscillatory (WENO) scheme is proposed in this paper to address these difficulties and to provide an efficient and robust method for solving the shallow water equations. A simple, easy-to-implement positivity-preserving limiter is introduced. One- and two-dimensional numerical examples are provided to verify the positivity-preserving property, well-balanced property, high-order accuracy, and good resolution for smooth and discontinuous solutions.

Xing, Yulong [ORNL; Shu, Chi-wang [Brown University

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

63

Dry Integrated Emissions Control Technology Options: EMO, DryFining, NeuStream-DR and DSI State-of-the-Art  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) technical update provides a series of enhanced Level 1 analyses of multiple dry integrated emissions reduction technology options for use at coal-fired, utility-scale generating plants. The report also contains a section covering the current state-of-the-art for Duct Sorbent Injection systems (DSI). This document also includes an updated listing of the Integrated Emissions Control (IEC) technologies that have been proposed in the past for use at ...

2013-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

64

Candidate sites for future hot-dry-rock development in the United States  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Generalized geologic and other data are tabulated for 24 potential hot dry rock (HDR) sites in the contiguous United States. The data show that HDR resources occur in many geologic and tectonic settings. Potential reservoir rocks at each prospect are described and each system is cateogrized accoridng to inferred heat sources. The Fenton Hill area in New Mexico is discussed in detail because this region may be considered ideal for HDR development. Three other prospectively valuable localities are described: The Geysers-Clear lake region in California, the Roosevelt Hot Springs area in Utah, and the White Mountains region in New Hampshire. These areas are singled out to illustrate the roles of significantly different geology and geophysics, reservoir rocks, and reservoir heat contents in possible HDR developments.

Goff, F.; Decker, E.R.

1982-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

65

Potential for hot-dry-rock geothermal energy in the western United States  

SciTech Connect

ABS>The U. S. Geological Survey has identified 1.5 million acres (2800 square miles) of western lands as having a significant potential for geothermal development.'' The LASL for the past 2 years has been actively investigating the potential for and preblems associated with extracting geothermal energy from the much more numerous regions of the western United States containing hot, but essentially dry, rock at moderate depths. A recent survey reveals that about 7% of the 13-state area comprising the Western Heat Flow Province---about 95,000 square miles--is underlain, at a depth of 5 km (16,400 ft), by hot rock at temperature levels above 290 deg C (>550 deg F). In the Los Alamos concept a man- made geothermal reservoir would be formed by first drilling into suitably hot rock, and then creating a very large surface area for heat transfer using conventional hydraulic fracturing techniques developed by the oil industry. After forming a circulation loop by drilling a second hole into the top of the fractured region, the heat contained would be convected to the surface by the buoyant circulation of water, without the need for pumping. The water in the Earth loop would be maintained as a liquid throughout by pressurization at the surface, both increasing the amount of heat transport up the second (withdrawal) hole, and enhancing the rate of heat removal from the fractured reservoir, when compared to steam. Thermal stresses resulting from the cooling of the hot rock in such a man-made reservoir may gradually enlarge the initial fracture system so that its useful lifetime will be greatly extended beyond the planned 10 to 15 years provided by the original reservoir. If these thermal stress cracks grow preferentially downward and outward into regions of hotter rock, as seems probable, the quality of the geothermal source may actually improve as energy is withdrawn from it. (auth)

Brown, D.W.

1973-07-25T23:59:59.000Z

66

Table 12. Interstate movements and movements across U.S. borders of natural gas by state, 2011  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 12. Interstate movements and movements across U.S. borders of natural gas by state, 2011 (million cubic feet) See footnotes at end of table. Alabama Florida 0 1,167,184 -1,167,184 Georgia 0 1,665,731 -1,665,731 Gulf of Mexico 195,241 0 195,241 Mississippi 3,690,612 0 3,690,612 Tennessee 536 573,157 -572,621 Total 3,886,389 3,406,072 480,317 Alaska Japan 0 15,271 -15,271 China 0 1,127 -1,127 Total 0 16,398 -16,398 Arizona California 122,198 940,673 -818,475 Mexico 3,061

67

Table 12. Interstate movements and movements across U.S. borders of natural gas by state, 2012  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 12. Interstate movements and movements across U.S. borders of natural gas by state, 2012 (million cubic feet) See footnotes at end of table. Alabama Florida 0 1,246,541 -1,246,541 Georgia 0 1,714,216 -1,714,216 Gulf of Mexico 154,527 0 154,527 Mississippi 3,635,297 0 3,635,297 Tennessee 79,316 290,500 -211,184 Total 3,869,140 3,251,257 617,883 Alaska Japan 0 9,342 -9,342 Total 0 9,342 -9,342 Arizona California 83,992 951,872 -867,880 Mexico 2,546 46,385 -43,838 New Mexico 1,256,916

68

Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2005-2009  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2005-2009 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year .... 425,887 440,516 452,945 R 476,652 493,100 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells .............................................. 494,748 509,577 483,238 R 442,265 420,197 From Oil Wells ................................................ 169,476 156,860 164,759 R 162,742 164,611 From Coalbed Wells ....................................... NA NA 50,400 R 56,249 55,990 From Shale Gas Wells .................................... NA NA NA 64,682 95,811 Total ................................................................. 664,223 666,438 698,397 R 725,938 736,609

69

Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2004-2008  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2004-2008 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year .... 406,147 425,887 440,516 R 452,945 478,562 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells .............................................. 506,454 494,748 509,577 R 483,238 510,019 From Oil Wells ................................................ 172,292 169,476 156,860 R 164,759 165,506 From Coalbed Wells ....................................... NA NA NA 50,400 53,757 Total ................................................................. 678,746 664,223 666,438 R 698,397 729,282 Repressuring .................................................... 104,819 104,759

70

Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2003-2007  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2003-2007 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year .... 393,327 406,147 425,887 R 440,516 452,768 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells .............................................. 506,356 506,454 494,748 R 509,577 530,629 From Oil Wells ................................................ 176,617 172,292 169,476 R 156,860 165,699 Total ................................................................. 682,973 678,746 664,223 R 666,438 696,328 Repressuring .................................................... 100,462 104,819 104,759 92,453 107,274 Vented and Flared ............................................

71

Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2002-2006  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table B1. Summary Statistics for Natural Gas in the United States, Metric Equivalents, 2002-2006 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Gas and Gas Condensate Wells Producing at End of Year .................................. 387,772 393,327 406,147 R 425,887 448,641 Production (million cubic meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells .............................................. 503,894 506,356 506,454 R 494,748 508,075 From Oil Wells ................................................ 174,047 176,617 172,292 R 169,476 157,583 Total ................................................................. 677,942 682,973 678,746 R 664,223 665,657 Repressuring .................................................... 97,839 100,462 104,819 R 104,759 92,453 Vented and Flared

72

Table 16. Recoverable Coal Reserves and Average Recovery Percentage at Producing Underground Coal Mines by State and Mining Method,  

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

Recoverable Coal Reserves and Average Recovery Percentage at Producing Underground Coal Mines by State and Mining Method, Recoverable Coal Reserves and Average Recovery Percentage at Producing Underground Coal Mines by State and Mining Method, 2012 (million short tons) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2012 Table 16. Recoverable Coal Reserves and Average Recovery Percentage at Producing Underground Coal Mines by State and Mining Method, 2012 (million short tons) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2012 Continuous 1 Conventional and Other 2 Longwall 3 Total Coal-Producing State Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines Average Recovery Percentage Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines Average Recovery Percentage Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines Average Recovery Percentage Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines Average Recovery Percentage

73

Tables - Refinery Capacity Report  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Tables: 1: Number and Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by PAD District and State as of January 1, 2009: PDF: 2: Production Capacity of Operable ...

74

Table of Exhibits..................................................................................................... iii  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Table of Contents..................................................................................................... ii

Pjm Interconnection

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

75

Table 6. Coal production and number of mines by State and coal...  

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

Coal production and number of mines by State and coal rank, 2011" "(thousand short tons)" ,"Bituminous",,"Subbituminous",,"Lignite",,"Anthracite",,"Total" "Coal-Producing State and...

76

Table B1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, metric equivalents, 2008-2012  

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

6 6 Table B1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, metric equivalents, 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 meters) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 428,565 408,167 375,127 348,044 360,663 From Oil Wells 158,841 160,673 165,220 167,294 140,725 From Coalbed Wells 57,263 56,922 54,277 50,377 43,591 From Shale Gas Wells 81,268 112,087 164,723 240,721 291,566 Total 725,938 737,849 759,347 806,436 836,545 Repressuring 103,034 99,734 97,172 95,295 92,304 Vented and Flared 4,726 4,682 4,699 5,931 6,027 Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed 20,351 20,431 23,693 24,577 21,573

77

Table 42. Residual Fuel Oil Prices by PAD District and State  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

by PAD District and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding Taxes) - Continued Geographic Area Month Sulfur Less Than or Equal to 1 Percent Sulfur Greater Than 1 Percent Average...

78

Table 13. Production of Crude Oil by PAD District and State ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Sources: State government agencies, U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, and the Conservation Committee of California Oil ...

79

1. Sentence 9.25.2.1.(1) and Table 9.25.2.1. state:  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The amendments to the Alberta Building Code 2006 addressing high-intensity residential fires include a requirement to provide a drywall finish (or other similar performing material), along with insulation and vapour barrier to the interior of attached garages. The requirement for the interior finish was added to delay the spread of a fire originating in an attached garage and to give occupants extra time to evacuate the associated dwelling unit. The requirement for insulation and a vapour barrier was added to the amendments as a precautionary measure due to the presence of the interior finish. It was felt that homeowners who purchase a house with a finished garage may be unaware that there was no insulation in the walls. If that homeowner were to then provide heat to the garage, thinking that it was in fact insulated, condensation would form within the exterior wall assembly which could lead to deterioration of the garage structural supports and the potential for the formation of mould and mildew. Sentence 9.25.2.1.(1) and Table 9.25.2.1. contain requirements for insulating heated garage, but does not contain any requirements for an unheated garage. This STANDATA has been developed to clarify what minimum insulation values are to be supplied in unheated attached garages.

unknown authors

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

80

Vegetable and Melons Yearbook Data Tables | Data.gov  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Vegetable and Melons Yearbook Data Tables Vegetable and Melons Yearbook Data Tables Agriculture Community Menu DATA APPS EVENTS DEVELOPER STATISTICS COLLABORATE ABOUT Agriculture You are here Data.gov » Communities » Agriculture » Data Vegetable and Melons Yearbook Data Tables Dataset Summary Description Production, acreage, value, prices, imports, exports, per capita use, and beginning stocks for major fresh market and processed vegetables, 1970 onward. Also includes data for potatoes, sweet potatoes, dry beans and peas, and fresh and processed mushrooms. Tags {"United States","Economic Research Service",prices,value,imports,exports,"per capita use","beginning stocks",vegetables,"fresh market",processed,potatoes,"sweet potatoes","dry beans",peas,"fresh muschrooms","processed mushrooms",mushrooms}

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

Table 10. Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, basin to state, STB dat  

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

Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, basin to state, STB data" Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, basin to state, STB data" ,,"Real Dollars per Ton",,,,,,,,,,"Annual Percent Change" "Basin","Destination State",2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,," 2001-2009"," 2008-2009" "Northern Appalachian Basin","Delaware"," W"," W"," $16.45"," $14.29"," W"," -"," W"," W"," -",," -"," -" "Northern Appalachian Basin","Florida"," $21.45"," W"," W"," W"," W"," $28.57"," W"," W"," W",," W"," W"

82

Table 4. 2010 State energy-related carbon dioxide emission shares by sector  

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

2010 State energy-related carbon dioxide emission shares by sector " 2010 State energy-related carbon dioxide emission shares by sector " "percent of total" ,"Shares" "State","Commercial","Electric Power","Residential","Industrial","Transportation" "Alabama",0.01584875241,0.5778871607,0.02136328943,0.1334667239,0.2514340736 "Alaska",0.06448385239,0.0785744956,0.0462016929,0.4291084798,0.3816314793 "Arizona",0.02474932909,0.5668758159,0.02425067581,0.04966758421,0.334456595 "Arkansas",0.03882032779,0.4886410984,0.03509200153,0.1307772146,0.3066693577 "California",0.04308920353,0.1176161395,0.07822332929,0.1824277392,0.5786435885 "Colorado",0.04301641968,0.4131279202,0.08115394032,0.1545280216,0.3081736982

83

Status and prospects for hot dry rock (HDR) in the United States  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

The vast majority of accessible geothermal energy exists in the form of heat stored in dry rock at depth. For nearly the last two decades, the Los Alamos National Laboratory has been engaged in a program to develop the technology to mine the thermal energy in this hot dry rock (HDR). The world's first heat mine was developed and operated at Fenton Hill, N.M. in the 1970's by using drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques to create an artificial reservoir in hot rock and subsequently circulating water through this reservoir to mine the heat from the rock. Over the last ten years, a much larger, deeper, and hotter heat mine has been constructed at Fenton Hill and a permanent energy extraction plant has been built on the surface. A long-term testing program has recently begun to evaluate the potential for sustained energy extraction from the large Fenton Hill heat mine. This paper summarizes the history of HDR research and development at Los Alamos, reports the initial results of the long-term testing program at Fenton Hill, and discusses the possible future course of HDR technology.

Brown, D.; Duchane, D.

1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

84

Table 8. Carbon intensity of the economy by state (2000 - 2010  

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

Carbon intensity of the economy by state (2000 - 2010)" Carbon intensity of the economy by state (2000 - 2010)" "metric tons energy-related carbon dioxide per million dollars of GDP" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"Change" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"2000 to 2010" "State",2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,"Percent","Absolute" "Alabama",1058.711976,985.9830444,997.7398528,980.4829779,950.0822539,936.4496611,935.6825335,938.4848601,889.0206564,785.4772247,861.2952959,-0.1864687321,-197.4166798 "Alaska",1298.328591,1216.063856,1175.487563,1199.290881,1223.852261,1270.682404,1148.488204,1084.165172,961.0592359,850.2898059,859.7252518,-0.337821521,-438.6033395 "Arizona",479.5818378,474.991173,460.4738058,446.205915,465.2665852,433.7092206,418.4239106,416.7348091,426.892719,409.9336342,419.7764202,-0.1247032579,-59.80541762

85

Table 1. State energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by year (2000 - 2010  

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

State energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by year (2000 - 2010)" State energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by year (2000 - 2010)" "million metric tons carbon dioxide" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"Change" ,,,,,,,,,,,," 2000 to 2010 " "State",2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,"Percent","Absolute" "Alabama",140.4264977,131.9521389,136.7103146,137.2323195,139.6896437,141.493798,143.9716001,146.076107,139.2224128,119.7962734,132.7462762,-0.05469211069,-7.680221558 "Alaska",44.32104312,43.40375114,43.56121812,43.5078746,46.76217106,48.06229125,45.79367017,44.11576503,39.46205329,37.91867389,38.72718369,-0.1262122693,-5.593859429 "Arizona",85.96984024,88.33838336,87.66914741,89.29026566,96.58329461,96.7032775,100.0087541,102.1950438,103.1458188,94.63481918,95.91303514,0.1156591064,9.943194897

86

Table 2. 2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel  

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

2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel " 2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel " "million metric tons of carbon dioxide" ,,,,,," Shares " "State","Coal","Petroleum","Natural Gas ","Total","Coal","Petroleum","Natural Gas" "Alabama",67.81545193,35.95576449,28.97505976,132.7462762,0.5108651925,0.2708608145,0.218273993 "Alaska",1.364880388,19.58916888,17.77313443,38.72718369,0.03524347131,0.5058247724,0.4589317562 "Arizona",43.2377726,34.82066125,17.85460129,95.91303514,0.4508018387,0.3630440972,0.1861540641 "Arkansas",27.72445786,23.82768621,14.56726112,66.11940519,0.4193089424,0.3603735717,0.2203174859 "California",5.157135123,241.2575077,123.3955377,369.8101805,0.01394535736,0.6523820067,0.3336726359

87

Table 4. Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, September 2013  

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

Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, September 2013" Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, September 2013" "State","Number of Producers","Annual Production Capacity (million gallons per year)" "Alabama",3,47 "Alaska",0,0 "Arizona",1,2 "Arkansas",3,85 "California",9,60.65 "Colorado",0,0 "Connecticut",2,3.05 "Delaware",0,0 "District of Columbia",0,0 "Florida",0,0 "Georgia",3,16 "Hawaii",1,5 "Idaho",1,1 "Illinois",5,166.5 "Indiana",2,104 "Iowa",8,249.5 "Kansas",1,1.2 "Kentucky",5,68.1 "Louisiana",1,12 "Maine",1,0.6 "Maryland",0,0 "Massachussetts",1,0.5 "Michigan",2,17.916

88

Table 5. Per capita energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by state (2000 - 201  

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

Per capita energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by state (2000 - 2010)" Per capita energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by state (2000 - 2010)" "metric tons carbon dioxide per person" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"Change" ,,,,,,,,,,,,"2000 to 2010" "State",2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,"Percent","Absolute" "Alabama",31.54590416,29.56352198,30.5739632,30.56483509,30.96927578,31.14605742,31.33283758,31.52225314,29.78727412,25.44798199,28.06679306,-0.1102872527,-3.479111105 "Alaska",70.60324067,68.51009907,67.8551127,67.17588806,70.92646205,72.04509462,67.81012638,64.8863351,57.56413017,54.58358965,54.63289567,-0.2261984697,-15.97034499 "Arizona",16.64049197,16.65546102,16.08173855,15.97087112,16.77174168,16.18743942,16.15392734,16.06780183,15.87052371,14.3654833,14.36549251,-0.1367146759,-2.274999466

89

Table 3. 2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector  

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

2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector " 2010 state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions by sector " "million metric tons of carbon dioxide" "State","Commercial","Electric Power","Residential","Industrial","Transportation","Total" "Alabama",2.103862865,76.71236863,2.835897119,17.71721059,33.37693698,132.7462762 "Alaska",2.497277997,3.042968925,1.789261448,16.61816292,14.7795124,38.72718369 "Arizona",2.373783271,54.37078005,2.325955921,4.76376875,32.07874715,95.91303514 "Arkansas",2.566776983,32.30865878,2.320262268,8.646911643,20.27679552,66.11940519 "California",15.93482613,43.49564577,28.92778352,67.46363514,213.9882899,369.8101805 "Colorado",4.150125234,39.85763155,7.82954551,14.90850811,29.73188961,96.47770002

90

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Table of Contents......i List of Tables.....ii

Ingleside Tx; Base Realignment

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

91

Hot dry rock in the United States: Putting a unique technology to practical use  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Hot dry rock (HDR) geothermal energy technology is unique in many aspects. HDR resources are much more widely distributed than hydrothermal resources, the production temperatures of fluids extracted from fully-engineered HDR reservoirs can be selected at will, and other important characteristics of HDR reservoirs can be controlled and even deliberately varied over time. Because HDR reservoirs can be rapidly discharged and recharged, a wide variety of operating scenarios can be envisioned that are not normally feasible for hydrothermal systems. Flow testing over the past few years has shown that HDR systems can be operated in a routine, automated manner that should make them rapidly adaptable to industrial applications. An industry-led HDR project now being formulated will lead to the development and operation of a practical facility to produce and market energy from an HDR resource by the turn of the century.

Duchane, D.V. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States). Earth and Environmental Sciences Div.

1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

92

Table C6. Wholesale Propane Prices by Region and State (Cents ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Wholesale Propane Prices by Region and State (Cents per Gallon) P=Preliminary data. ... New York 67.5 68.3 67.2 72.0 74.4 86.0 89.2 82.8 86.6 131.8 94.3 80.2

93

Table HC15.7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005  

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

7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005 7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005 Total.................................................................................. 111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment.................................... 17.8 1.8 Q Q 4.9 Have Cooling Equipment................................................. 93.3 5.3 7.0 7.8 7.2 Use Cooling Equipment.................................................. 91.4 5.3 7.0 7.7 6.6 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................................ 1.9 Q N Q 0.6 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................................. 65.9 1.1 6.4 6.4 5.4 Without a Heat Pump................................................. 53.5 1.1 3.5 5.7 4.9 With a Heat Pump......................................................

94

Table HC15.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005  

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

0 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005 0 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005 Total.................................................................................... 111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day................................................. 8.2 0.6 0.5 0.8 1.4 2 Times A Day.............................................................. 24.6 1.4 1.5 2.0 3.1 Once a Day................................................................... 42.3 2.4 3.0 2.7 4.1 A Few Times Each Week.............................................. 27.2 2.1 1.7 1.7 2.5 About Once a Week...................................................... 3.9 0.3 Q 0.4 0.6 Less Than Once a Week............................................... 4.1 Q Q 0.3 0.4 No Hot Meals Cooked...................................................

95

"Table HC15.3 Household Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

3 Household Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 3 Household Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Household Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Household Size" "1 Person",30,1.8,1.9,2,3.2 "2 Persons",34.8,2.2,2.3,2.4,3.2 "3 Persons",18.4,1.1,1.3,1.2,1.8 "4 Persons",15.9,1,0.9,1,2.3 "5 Persons",7.9,0.6,0.6,0.9,0.9 "6 or More Persons",4.1,0.4,"Q",0.5,0.7 "2005 Annual Household Income Category" "Less than $9,999",9.9,0.8,0.7,0.9,1 "$10,000 to $14,999",8.5,0.8,0.4,0.6,0.7

96

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

97

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

98

Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update / Table 1  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

1. Natural Gas Processing Plant Capacity by State 1. Natural Gas Processing Plant Capacity by State Natural Gas Processing Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Number of Natural Gas Plants Average Plant Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Change Between 2004 and 2009 State 2009 Percent of U.S. Total 2009 Percent of U.S. Total 2004 2009 Capacity (Percent) Number of Plants Texas 19,740 25.5 163 33.1 95 121 24.7 -3 Louisiana 18,535 23.9 60 12.2 271 309 12.3 -1 Wyoming 7,273 9.4 37 7.5 154 197 5.1 -8 Colorado 3,791 4.9 44 8.9 49 86 81.1 1 Oklahoma 3,740 4.8 58 11.8 58 64 8.8 -1 New Mexico 3,022 3.9 24 4.9 137 126 -11.8 -1 Mississippi 2,273 2.9 4 0.8 262 568 44.6 -2 Illinois 2,102 2.7 2 0.4 1101 1,051 -4.6 0 Kansas 1,250 1.6 6 1.2 353 208 -64.6 -4 Alabama 1,248 1.6 12 2.4 87 104 -4.7 -3 Utah 1,185 1.5 12 2.4 61 99 22.2 -4 Michigan 977 1.3 10 2.0 30 98 102.2 -6 California 876 1.1 20 4.1 43 44 -15.5 -4 Arkansas 710 0.9 4 0.8 10 178

99

Demonstration experiments for solid state physics using a table top mechanical Stirling refrigerator  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Liquid free cryogenic devices are acquiring importance in basic science and engineering. But they can also lead to improvements in teaching low temperature an solid state physics to graduate students and specialists. Most of the devices are relatively expensive, but small sized equipment is slowly becoming available. Here, we have designed several simple experiments which can be performed using a small Stirling refrigerator. We discuss the measurement of the critical current and temperature of a bulk YBa2Cu3O(7-d) (YBCO) sample, the observation of the levitation of a magnet over a YBCO disk when cooled below the critical temperature and the observation of a phase transition using ac calorimetry. The equipment can be easily handled by students, and also used to teach the principles of liquid free cooling.

Osorio, M R; Rodrigo, J G; Suderow, H; Vieira, S; 10.1088/0143-0807/33/4/757

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

100

Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update / Table 2  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2. Average Annual Flows and Utilization Rates for Processing Plants in the United States 2. Average Annual Flows and Utilization Rates for Processing Plants in the United States Average Annual Flows (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Minimum Plant Utilization Rate Maximum Plant Utilization Rate Average Utilization Rate (Percent) 2008 Percent of U.S. Total Texas 14,020 27.3 3 100 71 Louisiana 10,462 20.4 3 100 56 Alaska 8,105 15.8 77 100 86 Wyoming 4,462 8.7 21 100 61 Colorado 2,934 5.7 15 100 77 Oklahoma 2,789 5.4 12 100 75 New Mexico 2,221 4.3 17 95 73 Illinois 1,601 3.1 35 76 76 Kansas 852 1.7 51 84 68 Alabama 746 1.5 32 80 60 Utah 728 1.4 22 100 61 Mississippi 688 1.3 29 67 30 California 557 1.1 2 100 64 West Virginia 382 0.7 70 91 82 Kentucky 217 0.4 40 92 75 Michigan 182 0.4 5 100 19 North Dakota 158 0.3 33 94 80 Montana 89 0.2 27 88 54 Pennsylvania 36 0.1 43 89 70 Arkansas 27 0.1 3 90 4 Florida 20 0.0 22 22 22 Tennessee 16 0.0 64 64 64 TOTAL U.S. 51,289 100.0 2 100 66 Note: Average utilization rates are based on 2008 flows and 2009 capacity,

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

Potential of Hot-Dry-Rock Geothermal Energy in the Eastern United States  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

This is subtitled, ''A report to the United States Congress under Section 2502 of Public Law 102-486 (The Energy Policy Act of 1992)''. It documents a workshop held by the U.S.G.S. (in Philadelphia, January 1993) as required by EPACT 1992. The workshop concluded that under present (1993) economic and technological constraints, mining heat for power electrical power generation is not feasible in the eastern United States. The main issues are the costs of drilling very deep wells and the general applicability of hydrofracturing technology to compressional stress field typical of the eastern U.S. (DJE-2005)

None

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

102

Table 16. Natural gas delivered to consumers by sector, 2008-2012, and by state and sector, 2012  

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

1 1 Table 16. Natural gas delivered to consumers by sector, 2008-2012, and by state and sector, 2012 2008 Total 4,892,277 65,073,996 3,152,529 5,444,335 6,670,182 225,044 2009 Total 4,778,907 65,329,582 3,118,592 5,322,332 6,167,371 207,624 2010 Total 4,782,412 65,542,345 3,102,593 5,301,576 6,826,192 192,730 2011 Total R 4,713,777 R 65,940,522 R 3,155,319 R 5,319,817 R 6,994,120 R 189,301 2012 Total 4,148,970 66,624,457 2,895,358 5,355,613 7,223,835 189,330 Alabama 27,582 767,412 21,574 67,234 171,730 3,045 Alaska 21,380 122,983 19,898 13,134 6,357 3 Arizona 34,974 1,157,688 31,530 56,532 22,657 379 Arkansas 26,191 549,959 41,435 68,765 81,399 988 California 477,931 10,681,916 253,148 442,708 735,787 37,685 Colorado 115,306 1,659,808

103

Table 16. Natural gas delivered to consumers by sector, 2007-2011, and by state and sector, 2011  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

1 1 Table 16. Natural gas delivered to consumers by sector, 2007-2011, and by state and sector, 2011 2007 Total 4,722,358 64,964,769 3,012,904 5,308,785 6,654,716 198,289 2008 Total 4,892,277 65,073,996 3,152,529 5,444,335 6,670,182 225,044 2009 Total 4,778,907 65,329,582 3,118,592 5,322,332 6,167,371 207,624 2010 Total R 4,782,412 R 65,542,345 R 3,102,593 R 5,301,576 R 6,826,192 R 192,730 2011 Total 4,713,695 65,938,523 3,153,605 5,319,405 6,904,843 189,097 Alabama 36,556 772,248 25,136 67,657 153,067 2,976 Alaska 20,262 121,736 16,652 13,024 6,769 5 Arizona 38,592 1,146,286 32,633 56,547 21,724 371 Arkansas 33,737 551,795 39,986 67,815 85,175 1,131 California 512,565 10,625,190 246,141 440,990 706,350 37,575 Colorado 130,116 1,645,716

104

Table 4. 2010 State energy-related carbon dioxide emission shares by sector  

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

percent of total percent of total State Commercial Electric Power Residential Industrial Transportation Alabama 1.6% 57.8% 2.1% 13.3% 25.1% Alaska 6.4% 7.9% 4.6% 42.9% 38.2% Arizona 2.5% 56.7% 2.4% 5.0% 33.4% Arkansas 3.9% 48.9% 3.5% 13.1% 30.7% California 4.3% 11.8% 7.8% 18.2% 57.9% Colorado 4.3% 41.3% 8.1% 15.5% 30.8% Connecticut 9.2% 20.8% 20.9% 5.2% 43.9% Delaware 7.1% 36.0% 9.0% 9.1% 38.8% District of Columbia 35.5% 5.6% 25.2% 1.0% 32.7% Florida 2.2% 48.6% 0.7% 5.0% 43.5% Georgia 2.3% 45.5% 4.8% 8.3% 39.0% Hawaii 1.3% 40.1% 0.3% 9.0% 49.3% Idaho 6.6% 4.1% 10.0% 21.0% 58.3% Illinois 5.0% 40.8% 10.3% 14.7% 29.2% Indiana 2.4% 52.2% 4.0% 22.1% 19.3% Iowa 4.7% 45.7% 5.1% 20.2% 24.3% Kansas 2.7% 47.2% 6.0% 20.1% 24.0% Kentucky 1.6% 62.5% 2.5% 11.9% 21.5% Louisiana 0.9% 19.1% 1.2% 57.3% 21.6% Maine 9.6% 14.0% 14.6% 15.6% 46.3% Maryland 7.0% 35.3% 9.4% 5.9% 42.3% Massachusetts 9.3% 24.9% 18.8% 4.7%

105

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

0 Table 24. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Supply and Disposition by State, 2006 Alabama ... 1.44 1.81...

106

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 Table 25. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Supply and Disposition by State, 2008 Alabama ... 1.19 1.74...

107

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

4 Table 25. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Supply and Disposition by State, 2007 Alabama ... 1.31 1.83...

108

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

0 Table 24. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Supply and Disposition by State, 2005 Alabama ... 1.56 1.59...

109

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

4 Table 25. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Supply and Disposition by State, 2009 Alabama ... 1.1 2.0...

110

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2006 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ... 18.80 100.00...

111

Emergency Operations Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Table of Contents..................................................................................................... ii

unknown authors

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

112

FY 2013 State Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Fossil Energy Research and Development 5,955 13,076 7,255 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves Productions Operations 3,280 2,480...

113

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

114

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

115

Global Carbon Biomass Tables  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Table 1c. Mixed Forest Classes Table 1d. NaturalBurnt Forest Mosaic Classes Table 1e. CropForest Mosaic Classes Table 1f. Shrub Cover Classes Table 1g. Grassland Classes Table...

116

Table Search (or Ranking Tables)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Table Search (or Ranking Tables) Alon Halevy Google DBRank @ ICDE March 1, 2010 #12;Structured Data organizations Requires infrastructure, concerns about losing control Hard to find structured data via search Search #1 store locations used cars radio stations patents recipes · Deep = not accessible through

Halevy, Alon

117

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

118

Table 4  

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

125 69 112 131 137 158 7.36 Notes: -- To obtain the RSE percentage for any table cell, multiply the corresponding column and row factors. -- Because of rounding, data may...

119

Table 4  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

378 913 993 1,130 1,316 1,625 8.24 Notes: -- To obtain the RSE percentage for any table cell, multiply the corresponding column and row factors. -- Because of rounding, data may...

120

this table  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

AC Argentina AR Aruba AA Bahamas, The BF Barbados BB Belize BH Bolivia BL ... Table 1.2 World Petroleum Consumption, 1980-2006 (Thousand Barrels per Day) Page 1980.00 ...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

Trip Table ?????? #ejdyrki-#ejebnjj  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

http://trip-table.com - /5e8f0a852f9c1d454b6df13f1365e4ef/e684451614f1683226855e2b90e1249c.html ... Top page #ejdyrki:?XNHx/Baass #ejdzgey:?maO8DRy4pM #ejdzuzo ...

122

Conversion Tables  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

123

State Summaries  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

46. 46. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Supply and Disposition by State, 1996 Table State Estimated Proved Reserves (dry) Marketed Production Total Consumption Alabama................................................................... 3.02 2.69 1.48 Alaska ...................................................................... 5.58 2.43 2.04 Arizona..................................................................... NA 0 0.55 Arkansas.................................................................. 0.88 1.12 1.23 California.................................................................. 1.25 1.45 8.23 Colorado .................................................................. 4.63 2.90 1.40 Connecticut.............................................................. 0 0 0.58 D.C...........................................................................

124

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

125

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

126

Dry cleaning of Turkish coal  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This study dealt with the upgrading of two different type of Turkish coal by a dry cleaning method using a modified air table. The industrial size air table used in this study is a device for removing stones from agricultural products. This study investigates the technical and economical feasibility of the dry cleaning method which has never been applied before on coals in Turkey. The application of a dry cleaning method on Turkish coals designated for power generation without generating environmental pollution and ensuring a stable coal quality are the main objectives of this study. The size fractions of 5-8, 3-5, and 1-3 mm of the investigated coals were used in the upgrading experiments. Satisfactory results were achieved with coal from the Soma region, whereas the upgrading results of Hsamlar coal were objectionable for the coarser size fractions. However, acceptable results were obtained for the size fraction 1-3 mm of Hsamlar coal.

Cicek, T. [Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir (Turkey). Faculty of Engineering

2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

127

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 2. Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Consumption, by State, 2007 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ... 270,407 19,831 77,311 90,589 0 -69 0 418,545...

128

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 2. Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Consumption, by State, 2009 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ... 236,029 17,232 -25,416 258,787 0 -2,099 0 454,268...

129

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 2. Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Consumption, by State, 2006 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ... 286,220 21,065 37,079 97,347 0 8,484 0 391,098...

130

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3 Table 2. Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Consumption, by State, 2005 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ... 296,528 13,759 131,734 -60,062 0 103 0 354,339...

131

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 2. Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Consumption, by State, 2008 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ... 257,884 17,222 1,335 166,539 0 4,379 0 404,157...

132

Microsoft Word - table_26.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

5 Table 26. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State, 2009 Alabama ... 0.8 0.8 2.1 0.3 3.3 Alaska... 0.4...

133

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

1 Table 25. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State, 2005 Alabama ... 0.87 0.86 2.24 0.52 1.79 Alaska......

134

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

1 Table 25. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State, 2006 Alabama ... 0.87 0.86 2.31 0.67 2.34 Alaska......

135

Microsoft Word - table_26.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

5 Table 26. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State, 2008 Alabama ... 0.78 0.80 2.14 0.36 2.46 Alaska......

136

Microsoft Word - table_26.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

5 Table 26. Percent Distribution of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State, 2007 Alabama ... 0.75 0.78 2.27 0.47 2.57 Alaska......

137

All Price Tables.vp  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Administration State Energy Data 2010: Prices and Expenditures 3 2 0 1 0 S U M M A R I E S Table E2. Total End-Use Energy Price Estimates, 2010 (Dollars per Million Btu)...

138

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3 Table 22. Average City Gate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2001-2005 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ... 6.63 4.74 6.06 6.65...

139

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

5 Table 22. Average Citygate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2005-2009 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ... 8.47 10.26 8.78 9.84...

140

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

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

All Consumption Tables - Energy Information Administration  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

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

142

"Table HC15.1 Housing Unit Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

Housing Unit Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" Housing Unit Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million Housing Units" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Housing Unit Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Census Region and Division" "Northeast",20.6,7.1,"N","N","N" "New England",5.5,"N","N","N","N" "Middle Atlantic",15.1,7.1,"N","N","N" "Midwest",25.6,"N","N","N","N" "East North Central",17.7,"N","N","N","N"

143

"RSE Table C10.3. Relative Standard Errors for Table C10.3;"  

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

3. Relative Standard Errors for Table C10.3;" 3. Relative Standard Errors for Table C10.3;" " Unit: Percents." "NAICS"," " "Code(a)","Industry-Specific Technology","In Use(b)","Not in Use","Don't Know" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"FOOD" ," Infrared Heating",3,1,2 ," Microwave Drying",5,1,3 ," Closed-Cycle Heat Pump System Used to Recover Heat",7,1,3 ," Open-Cycle Heat Pump System Used to Produce Steam",7,1,3 ," Gas-Driven Rotary Engines and/or Turbines",20,1,3 ," Membrane Separation",3,1,2 ," Irradiation",23,1,2 ," Freeze Concentration",9,1,3 ," Membrane Hyperfiltration to Separate Water from Food Products",4,1,3

144

Certification and Training Requirements Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Table of Exhibits..................................................................................................... iii

unknown authors

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

145

"Table HC15.6 Air Conditioning Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

6 Air Conditioning Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 6 Air Conditioning Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Air Conditioning Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Do Not Have Cooling Equipment",17.8,1.8,"Q","Q",4.9 "Have Cooling Equipment",93.3,5.3,7,7.8,7.2 "Use Cooling Equipment",91.4,5.3,7,7.7,6.6 "Have Equipment But Do Not Use it",1.9,"Q","N","Q",0.6 "Air-Conditioning Equipment1, 2 " "Central System",65.9,1.1,6.4,6.4,5.4

146

"Table HC15.4 Space Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

4 Space Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 4 Space Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Space Heating Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment",1.2,"Q","Q","Q",0.2 "Have Main Space Heating Equipment",109.8,7.1,6.8,7.9,11.9 "Use Main Space Heating Equipment",109.1,7.1,6.6,7.9,11.4 "Have Equipment But Do Not Use It",0.8,"N","Q","N",0.5 "Main Heating Fuel and Equipment" "Natural Gas",58.2,3.8,0.4,3.8,8.4

147

"Table HC15.5 Space Heating Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

5 Space Heating Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 5 Space Heating Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Space Heating Usage Indicators",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total U.S. Housing Units",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Do Not Have Heating Equipment",1.2,"Q","Q","Q",0.2 "Have Space Heating Equipment",109.8,7.1,6.8,7.9,11.9 "Use Space Heating Equipment",109.1,7.1,6.6,7.9,11.4 "Have But Do Not Use Equipment",0.8,"N","Q","N",0.5 "Space Heating Usage During 2005" "Heated Floorspace (Square Feet)"

148

"Table HC15.9 Home Appliances Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

9 Home Appliances Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 9 Home Appliances Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Home Appliances Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total U.S.",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Cooking Appliances" "Conventional Ovens" "Use an Oven",109.6,7.1,6.9,7.8,11.7 "1.",103.3,6.5,6.6,7.4,11.2 "2 or More",6.2,0.6,"Q",0.4,0.5 "Do Not Use an Oven",1.5,"Q","Q","Q",0.4 "Most-Used Oven Fuel" "Electric",67.9,2.3,6.5,4.9,4.9 "Natural Gas",36.4,4.2,"Q",2.6,6.6

149

"Table HC15.7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Air Conditioning Usage Indicators",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Do Not Have Cooling Equipment",17.8,1.8,"Q","Q",4.9 "Have Cooling Equipment",93.3,5.3,7,7.8,7.2 "Use Cooling Equipment",91.4,5.3,7,7.7,6.6 "Have Equipment But Do Not Use it",1.9,"Q","N","Q",0.6 "Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment1, 2" "Central System",65.9,1.1,6.4,6.4,5.4

150

"Table HC15.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

0 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 0 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Home Appliances Usage Indicators",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Cooking Appliances" "Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked" "3 or More Times A Day",8.2,0.6,0.5,0.8,1.4 "2 Times A Day",24.6,1.4,1.5,2,3.1 "Once a Day",42.3,2.4,3,2.7,4.1 "A Few Times Each Week",27.2,2.1,1.7,1.7,2.5 "About Once a Week",3.9,0.3,"Q",0.4,0.6 "Less Than Once a Week",4.1,"Q","Q",0.3,0.4

151

"Table HC15.11 Home Electronics Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

1 Home Electronics Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 1 Home Electronics Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Home Electronics Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Personal Computers" "Do Not Use a Personal Computer ",35.5,3,2,2.7,3.1 "Use a Personal Computer",75.6,4.2,5,5.3,9 "Number of Desktop PCs" "1.",50.3,3.1,3.4,3.4,5.4 "2.",16.2,0.7,1.1,1.2,2.2 "3 or More",9,0.3,0.5,0.7,1.4 "Number of Laptop PCs" "1.",22.5,1.2,1.4,1.8,3 "2.",4,"Q","Q",0.3,0.6

152

"Table HC15.8 Water Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

8 Water Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 8 Water Heating Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Water Heating Characteristics",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Number of Water Heaters" "1.",106.3,6.5,6.9,7.4,11.7 "2 or More",3.7,"Q","Q",0.5,0.4 "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,0.5,"N","Q","N" "Housing Units Served by Main Water Heater" "One Housing Unit",99.7,4.3,6.8,7.4,10.6 "Two or More Housing Units",10.3,2.3,"Q",0.5,1.5

153

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:

154

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

155

Potential for crop drying with geothermal hot water resources in the western United States: alfalfa, a case study. Report 305-100-02  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Preliminary results of engineering, economic, and geographic analysis of the use of low-temperature geothermal heat for the commercial drying of grains, grasses, fruits, vegetables and livestock products in the United States are reported. Alfalfa (lucerne) dehydration was chosen for detailed process and cost study. Six different geothermal heat exchanger/dryer configurations were examined. A conveyor type that could utilize geothermal hot water for its entire heat requirement proved to be the most economical. A capital cost estimate for an all-geothermal alfalfa dehydration plant near the Heber Known Geothermal Resource Area in the Imperial Valley, California was prepared. The combined cost for heat exchangers and dryer is about $1.6 million. Output is about 11 metric tons per hour. Acreage, production and dollar value data for 22 dryable crops were compiled for the areas surrounding identified hydrothermal resources in 11 western states. The potential magnitude of fossil fuel use that could be replaced by geothermal heat for drying these crops will be estimated.

Wright, T.C.

1977-06-22T23:59:59.000Z

156

Table F28: Wind Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table F28: Wind Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 State Commercial Industrial Electric Power Total Commercial Industrial Electric Power Total

157

Housing Characteristics Detailed Tables - U.S. Energy Information ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Energy Information Administration. United States Department of Energy 1997 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION SURVEY HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS DETAILED DATA TABLES (FINAL)

158

Table 5C. Industrial Average Monthly Bill by Census Division ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Home > Electricity > Electric Sales, Revenue, and Price > Industrial Average Monthly Bill by Census Division, and State: Table 5C. Industrial ...

159

Table 4. Average retail price for bundled and unbundled consumers ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table 4. Average retail price for bundled and unbundled consumers by sector, Census Division, and State 2011

160

"Table HC15.13 Lighting Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005"  

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

3 Lighting Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 3 Lighting Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","Four Most Populated States" "Lighting Usage Indicators",,"New York","Florida","Texas","California" "Total U.S. Housing Units",111.1,7.1,7,8,12.1 "Indoor Lights Turned On During Summer" "Number of Lights Turned On" "Between 1 and 4 Hours per Day",91.8,5.5,5.5,6.7,9.5 "1.",28.6,1.8,2,2.3,2.8 "2.",29.5,2.3,1.9,2,3.4 "3.",14.7,0.7,0.8,0.9,1.4 "4.",9.3,0.4,"Q",0.8,1.1 "5 or More",9.7,0.4,0.4,0.8,0.9 "Energy-Efficient Bulbs Used",31.1,1.7,1.7,2.1,4.7

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

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.

162

Notices TABLE  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

163

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

164

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seventeen tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2004 Appendix tables A2 and A3,...

165

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and nine tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2003 Appendix tables A2 and A3,...

166

Meson Summary Table See  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Meson Summary Table See also the table of suggested qq quark-model assignments in the Quark Model section. * Indicates particles that appear in the preceding Meson Summary Table....

167

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Vehicle Fuel Economy Table 57. New Light-Duty Vehicle Prices Table 58. New Light-Duty Vehicle Range Table 59. Electric Power Projections for EMM Region 01- East Central Area...

168

Table ET1. Primary Energy, Electricity, and Total Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates, Selected Years, 1970-2011, United States  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

ET1. Primary Energy, Electricity, and Total Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates, Selected Years, 1970-2011, United States ET1. Primary Energy, Electricity, and Total Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates, Selected Years, 1970-2011, United States Year Primary Energy Electric Power Sector h,j Retail Electricity Total Energy g,h,i Coal Coal Coke Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass Total g,h,i,j Coking Coal Steam Coal Total Exports Imports Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel b LPG c Motor Gasoline d Residual Fuel Oil Other e Total Wood and Waste f,g Prices in Dollars per Million Btu 1970 0.45 0.36 0.38 1.27 0.93 0.59 1.16 0.73 1.43 2.85 0.42 1.38 1.71 0.18 1.29 1.08 0.32 4.98 1.65 1975 1.65 0.90 1.03 2.37 3.47 1.18 2.60 2.05 2.96 4.65 1.93 2.94 3.35 0.24 1.50 2.19 0.97 8.61 3.33 1980 2.10 1.38 1.46 2.54 3.19 2.86 6.70 6.36 5.64 9.84 3.88 7.04 7.40 0.43 2.26 4.57 1.77 13.95 6.89 1985 2.03 1.67 1.69 2.76 2.99 4.61 7.22 5.91 6.63 9.01 4.30 R 7.62 R 7.64 0.71 2.47 4.93 1.91 19.05

169

The use of solid-state NMR techniques for the analysis of water in coal and the effect of different coal drying techniques on the structure and reactivity of coal. Quarterly report, March 1, 1994--May 31, 1994  

SciTech Connect

One area for improvement in the economics of coal liquefaction is coal drying, particularly for the lower rank coals. However, there is considerable evidence to show that drying has a detrimental effect on the liquefaction behavior of coals. Regarding the liquefaction of coal, there does not appear to have been any systematic study of the methods of coal drying on coal structure and the role water plays in enhancing or lessening coal reactivity toward liquefaction. For the research program reported here, different methods of drying are being investigated to determine if drying can be accomplished without destroying coal reactivity toward liquefaction. In an effort to understand the mechanism of water for enhancing coal liquefaction yield, the reactions of D{sub 2}O with the molecular constituents of coal during coal liquefaction are being investigated. This study involves the use of solution-state deuterium NMR, as well as, conventional solution-state {sup 1}H and {sup 13}C NMR analyses of the coal, and the coal liquids and residue from a coal liquefaction process. These D{sub 2}O transfer reactions will be conducted on coals which have been dried by various methods and rehydrated using D{sub 2}O and by successive exchange of H{sub 2}O associated with the coals with D{sub 2}O. The drying methods include thermal, microwave, and chemical dehydration of the coal.

Netzel, D.A.

1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

170

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

171

Directory of Operable Petroleum Refineries on Tables 38 and 39  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Directory of Operable Petroleum Refineries on Tables 38 and 39 Refiner State(s)aRefiner State(s)a.....Age Refining Inc ...

172

Table 5A. Residential Average Monthly Bill by Census Division ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table 5A. Residential Average Monthly Bill by Census Division, and State, 2009: Census Division State Number of Consumers Average Monthly Consumption ...

173

Table of Contents  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

174

Guides and Case Studies for Hot-Dry and Mixed-Dry Climates | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Dry and Mixed-Dry Climates Dry and Mixed-Dry Climates Guides and Case Studies for Hot-Dry and Mixed-Dry Climates Map of the Hot-Dry and Mixed-Dry Zone of the United States. The zone contains the eastern side of California and follows the US border to cover the western half of Texas. The Department of Energy (DOE) has developed a series of best practices and case studies to help builders improve whole-house energy performance in buildings found in hot-dry and mixed-dry climates. Best Practice Guides New Construction Case Studies Improvements to Existing Homes Case Studies Best Practice Guides 40% Whole-House Energy Savings in Hot-Dry and Mixed-Dry Climates - Volume 9 New Construction Case Studies Arizona Project: Gordon Estates - Phoenix Builder: Mandalay Homes Profile: Fourteen homes in this subdivision achieved Challenge Home

175

Just enough tabling  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

We introduce just enough tabling (JET), a mechanism to suspend and resume the tabled execution of logic programs at an arbitrary point. In particular, JET allows pruning of tabled logic programs to be performed without resorting to any recomputation. ... Keywords: logic programming, pruning, suspension/resumption in the WAM, tabling

Konstantinos Sagonas; Peter J. Stuckey

2004-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

176

Cost Development Guidelines Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Table of Contents..................................................................................................... ii Table of Exhibits...................................................................................................... v Approval.................................................................................................................. vi

unknown authors

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

177

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

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

6 Table 23. Average citygate price of natural gas in the United States, 2007- 2011 (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Alabama 8.78 9.84 7.61 6.46 5.80 Alaska 6.75 6.74 8.22 6.67...

178

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)

179

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

180

Dry Cooling: Perspectives on Future Needs  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The total number of dry-cooled power plants in the United States has increased significantly in recent years. This is because nonutility generators are using dry-cooling systems to meet environmental protection and water conservation requirements. A survey shows that utility planners expect that dry cooling could become an important cooling-system option for new utility plants.

1991-08-19T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

Table of Contents PJM Manual [18]: PJM Capacity Market  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Table of Contents Table of Contents..................................................................................................... ii

unknown authors

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

182

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 37. Refrigeration Equipment, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 38. Water-Heating Equipment, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 39. Lighting...

183

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 25. Cooling Energy Sources, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 26. Water-Heating Energy Sources, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 27. Water-Heating Energy...

184

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)

185

Table of Contents  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS OF SMART GRID TECHNOLOGIES October 5, 2010 i Table of Contents I. Introduction and Executive Summary......

186

FY 2005 Statistical Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

187

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

188

The use of solid-state NMR techniques for the analysis of water in coal and the effect of different coal drying techniques on the structure and reactivity of coal; Quarterly report, September 1--November 30, 1993  

SciTech Connect

For the research program reported here, different methods of drying are being investigated to determine if drying can be accomplished without destroying coal reactivity toward liquefaction. In an effort to understand the mechanism of water for enhancing coal liquefaction yield, the reactions of D{sub 2}O with the molecular constituents of coal during coal liquefaction are being investigated. This study involves the use of solution-state deuterium NMR, as well as, conventional solution-state {sup 1}H and {sup 13}C NMR analyses of the coal, and the coal liquids and residue from a coal liquefaction process. These D{sub 2}O transfer reactions will be conducted on coals which have been dried by various methods and rehydrated using D{sub 2}O and by successive exchange of H{sub 2}O associated with the coals with D{sub 2}O. The drying methods include thermal, microwave, and chemical dehydration of the coal. The overall objectives of this study are to develop a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) method for measuring the water in coal, to measure the changes in coal structure that occur during coal drying, to determine what effect water has on retrograde/condensation reactions, to determine the mechanism by which water may impact coal reactivity toward liquefaction, and to conduct D{sub 2}O exchange studies to ascertain the role of water in coal liquefaction. The objectives for this quarterly report period were (1) to measure the volumetric swelling ratio for thermally- and microwave-dried coals and (2) to conduct preliminary experiments concerning the exchange of water in coal with deuterium oxide (D{sub 2}O).

Netzel, D.A.

1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

189

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

190

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.

191

Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

220 Energy Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per...

192

Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

250 Energy Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons...

193

Table 28. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Marketing Monthly January 2012 56 Table 28. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State

194

Table 31. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Marketing Monthly February 2012 76 Table 31. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State

195

Table 45. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table 45. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) Continued

196

Table 16. Coalbed methane proved reserves and production, 2007 - 2011  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table 16: Coalbed methane proved reserves and production, 2007 2011 billion cubic feet State and Subdivision 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

197

Table CT1. Energy Consumption Estimates for Major Energy Sources ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

R A D O. U.S. Energy Information Administration State Energy Data 2011: Consumption 89 Table CT6. Industrial Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, Selected Years, 1960 ...

198

Table F24: Wood and Biomass Waste Consumption Estimates, 2011  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table F24: Wood and Biomass Waste Consumption Estimates, 2011 State Wood Wood and Biomass Waste a Residential Commercial Industrial Electric Power ...

199

Table 5B. Commercial Average Monthly Bill by Census Division ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Home > Electricity > Electric Sales, Revenue, and Price > Commercial Average Monthly Bill by Census Division, and State: Table 5B. Commercial Average Monthly Bill by ...

200

Table 13. Shale Gas Proved Reserves and Production, 2007 - 2009 ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table 13. Shale Gas Proved Reserves and Production, 2007 - 2009 (Billion Cubic Feet at 14.73 psia and 60 Fahrenheit) Reserves Production State and Subdivision 2007 ...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 2000 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding Taxes) -...

202

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding Taxes) -...

203

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Marketing Annual 1998 Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

204

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

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) -...

205

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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...

206

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) Geographic Area

207

Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

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) -...

208

Table CT1. Energy Consumption Estimates for Major Energy ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

U.S. Energy Information Administration State Energy Data 2011: Consumption 365 Table CT2. Primary Energy Consumption Estimates, Selected Years, 1960-2011, North ...

209

Table E1. Estimated Primary Energy Consumption in the United ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table E1. Estimated Primary Energy Consumption in the United States, Selected Years, 1635-1945 (Quadrillion Btu) Year: Fossil Fuels

210

Table F17: Coal Consumption Estimates and Imports and Exports ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table F17: Coal Consumption Estimates and Imports and Exports of Coal Coke, 2011 State Coal Coal Coke Residential a Commercial Industrial Electric ...

211

Table F18: Coal Price and Expenditure Estimates and Imports ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table F18: Coal Price and Expenditure Estimates and Imports and Exports of Coal Coke, 2011 State Coal Coal Coke Prices Expenditures Prices ...

212

State Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

2010 Price and Expenditure Summary Tables. Table E1. Primary Energy, Electricity, ... Ranked by State, 2010 Rank Prices Expenditures Expenditures per Person State

213

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.

214

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

215

FY 2005 Laboratory Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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.

216

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.

217

Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Table of Contents. A, B. 1, USGCB Settings. 2, This spreadsheet captures the USGCB defined configuration settings. 3, Tab Name, Tab Description. ...

2013-11-19T23:59:59.000Z

218

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)

219

Table 1.2 Primary Energy Production by Source, 1949-2011 ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Natural Gas (Dry) Crude Oil 3: NGPL 4: Total: Hydro-electric Power 6: Geothermal 7: Solar/PV 8: Wind 9: Biomass 10: Total: 1949: ... refuse recovery. See Table 7.1.

220

Table 1.2 Primary Energy Production by Source, 1949-2011 ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Natural Gas (Dry) Crude Oil 3: NGPL 4: Total: Hydro-electric Power 6: Geothermal 7: Solar/PV 8: Wind 9: Biomass 10: Total: 1949. ... refuse recovery. See Table 7.1.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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 1.2 Primary Energy Production by Source, 1949-2011 (Billion Btu)  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Natural Gas (Dry) Crude Oil 3: NGPL 4: Total: Hydro-electric Power 6: Geothermal 7: Solar/PV 8: Wind 9: Biomass 10: Total: 1949. ... refuse recovery. See Table 7.1.

222

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

223

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

224

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

225

1997 Consumption and Expenditures Tables  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

5HVLGHQWLDO (QHUJ\\ &RQVXPSWLRQ 6XUYH\\V 1997 Consumption and Expenditures Tables Appliances Consumption Tables (17 pages, 60 kb) Contents Pages CE5-1c.

226

ARM - Instrument Location Table  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

227

Dry Cask Storage Probabilistic Risk Assessment Scoping Study  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report describes and evaluates the current state of risk assessment methodologies applicable to dry cask storage probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and suggests appropriate approaches for performing the various aspects of a dry cask storage PRA.

2002-03-20T23:59:59.000Z

228

FY 2010 Laboratory Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

229

Table - Energy Information Administration  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

September 2013 U.S. Energy Information 9/27/2013 9:52:45 AM Administration | Natural Gas Monthly 9 Created on: Table 4. U.S. natural gas imports ...

230

table E1  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

AC Argentina AR Aruba AA Bahamas, The BF Barbados BB Belize BH Bolivia BL ... Table E.1 World Primary Energy Consumption (Btu), 1980-2006 (Quadrillion (10 15 ) Btu) Page

231

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.

232

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

233

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

234

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

235

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

236

2001 Housing Characteristics Detailed Tables  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey-Housing Characteristics, 2001 Detailed Tables, Energy Information Administration

237

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

238

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"

239

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

240

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

EIA'S Natural Gas Residential Programs by State  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Marketer List: Marketer Summary Table: ... State Public Utility Commission Web Sites. Status of State Electric Industry Restructuring Activity.

242

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

243

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

244

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

245

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

246

Microsoft Word - table_B2.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

81 81 Table B2. Thermal Conversion Factors and Data, 2004-2008 Conversion Factor (Btu per cubic foot) Production Marketed...................................................... R 1,104 R 1,104 1,103 1,104 1,100 Extraction Loss ............................................ 2,666 2,660 2,639 2,648 2,643 Total Dry Production.................................. R 1,026 R 1,028 1,028 1,029 1,027 Supply Dry Production ............................................. R 1,026 R 1,028 1,028 1,029 1,027 Receipts at U.S. Borders Imports....................................................... 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Intransit Receipts ....................................... 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Withdrawals from Storage Underground Storage.................................

247

Microsoft Word - table_B2.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

81 81 Table B2. Thermal Conversion Factors and Data, 2005-2009 Conversion Factor (Btu per cubic foot) Production Marketed...................................................... 1,104 1,103 1,104 1,100 1,101 Extraction Loss ............................................ 2,660 2,639 2,648 2,643 2,627 Total Dry Production.................................. 1,028 1,028 1,029 1,027 1,025 Supply Dry Production ............................................. 1,028 1,028 1,029 1,027 1,025 Receipts at U.S. Borders Imports....................................................... 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Intransit Receipts ....................................... 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Withdrawals from Storage Underground Storage.................................

248

Microsoft Word - table_B2.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3 3 Table B2. Thermal Conversion Factors and Data, 2006-2010 Conversion Factor (Btu per cubic foot) Production Marketed...................................................... 1,103 R 1,102 1,100 1,101 1,097 Extraction Loss ............................................ 2,639 2,648 2,643 2,627 2,590 Total Dry Production.................................. 1,028 R 1,027 1,027 1,025 1,023 Supply Dry Production ............................................. 1,028 R 1,027 1,027 1,025 1,023 Receipts at U.S. Borders Imports....................................................... 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Intransit Receipts ....................................... 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Withdrawals from Storage Underground Storage.................................

249

Microsoft Word - table_B2.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

81 81 Table B2. Thermal Conversion Factors and Data, 2003-2007 Conversion Factor (Btu per cubic foot) Production Marketed...................................................... 1,106 1,105 1,105 1,103 1,104 Extraction Loss ............................................ 2,747 2,666 2,660 2,639 2,648 Total Dry Production.................................. 1,031 1,027 1,029 1,028 1,029 Supply Dry Production ............................................. 1,031 1,027 1,029 1,028 1,029 Receipts at U.S. Borders Imports....................................................... 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Intransit Receipts ....................................... 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Withdrawals from Storage Underground Storage.................................

250

Microsoft Word - table_B2.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table B2. Thermal Conversion Factors and Data, 2002-2006 Conversion Factor (Btu per cubic foot) Production Marketed...................................................... 1,106 1,106 1,105 R 1,105 1,103 Extraction Loss ............................................ 2,671 2,747 2,666 2,660 2,639 Total Dry Production.................................. 1,027 1,031 1,027 1,029 1,028 Supply Dry Production ............................................. 1,027 1,031 1,027 1,029 1,028 Receipts at U.S. Borders Imports....................................................... 1,022 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Intransit Receipts ....................................... 1,022 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Withdrawals from Storage Underground Storage.................................

251

Transporting Dry Ice  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Requirements for Shipping Dry Ice IATA PI 904 Source: Reg of the Day from ERCweb 2006 Environmental Resource Center | 919-469-1585 | webmaster@ercweb.com http:...

252

FY 2007 Laboratory Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

253

FY 2011 Laboratory Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

254

FY 2008 Laboratory Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

255

FY 2006 Laboratory Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

256

Fy 2009 Laboratory Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

257

FY 2013 Statistical Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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 -- --

258

FY 2009 Statistical Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

259

Advanced Vehicle Technologies Awards Table | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

260

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.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

State of Washington Department of Health Radioactive air emissions notice of construction phase 1 for spent nuclear fuel project - cold vacuum drying facility, project W-441  

SciTech Connect

This notice of construction (NOC) provides information regarding the source and the estimated annual possession quantity resulting from operation of the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF). Additional details on emissions generated by the operation of the CVDF will be discussed again in the Phase 11 NOC. This document serves as a NOC pursuant to the requirements of WAC 246-247-060 for the completion of Phase I NOC, defined as the pouring of concrete for the foundation flooring, construction of external walls, and construction of the building excluding the installation of CVDF process equipment. A Phase 11 NOC will be submitted for approval prior to installing and is defined as the completion of the CVDF, which consisted installation of process equipment, air emissions control, and emission monitoring equipment. About 80 percent of the U.S. Department of Energy`s spent nuclear fuel (SNF) inventory is stored under water in the Hanford Site K Basins. Spent nuclear fuel in the K West Basin is contained in closed canisters while the SNF in the K East Basin is in open canisters, which allow free release of corrosion products to the K East Basin water.

Turnbaugh, J.E.

1996-08-15T23:59:59.000Z

262

Dry sorbent injection may serve as a key pollution control ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Dry sorbent injection (DSI) is a pollution control technology that may play a role in the United States' electric power sector's compliance with the Mercury and Air ...

263

Figure 5. Percentage change in natural gas dry production and ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Figure 5. Percentage change in natural gas dry production and number of gas wells in the United States, 2007?2011 annual ...

264

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

265

Gelcasting compositions having improved drying characteristics and machinability  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

A gelcasting composition has improved drying behavior, machinability and shelf life in the dried and unfired state. The composition includes an inorganic powder, solvent, monomer system soluble in the solvent, an initiator system for polymerizing the monomer system, and a plasticizer soluble in the solvent. Dispersants and other processing aides to control slurry properties can be added. The plasticizer imparts an ability to dry thick section parts, to store samples in the dried state without cracking under conditions of varying relative humidity, and to machine dry gelcast parts without cracking or chipping. A method of making gelcast parts is also disclosed.

Janney, Mark A. (Knoxville, TN); Walls, Claudia A. H. (Oak Ridge, TN)

2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

266

The Low-Level Structure and Evolution of a Dry Arctic Front over the Central United States. Part I: Mesoscale Observations  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Observations taken over the period 810 March 1992 during the Storm-scale Operational and Research Meteorology Fronts Experiment Systems Test in the central United States are used to document the detailed low-level structure and evolution of a ...

L. Jay Miller; Margaret A. LeMone; William Blumen; Robert L. Grossman; Nimal Gamage; Robert J. Zamora

1996-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

267

EJ and EK Pay Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

The EJ and EK pay table excludes locality pay. Refer to the General Schedule Complete Set of Locality Pay Tables to determine the locality pay for your applicable geographic area.

268

February 2013 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Inform February 2013 table of contents. February 2013 Table of Contents inform Magazine algae algal AOCS biomass business chemistry cottonseed date detergents fats filing first history inform inform Magazine international inventor law magazine me

269

Visualization of truth tables - CECM  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Nov 19, 1997 ... Visualization of truth tables. The Figures are computer-generated tables that show the value 1 as being represented by a black pixel and 0 by a...

270

January 2013 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

inform January 2013 table of contents. January 2013 Table of Contents inform Magazine algae algal AOCS biomass business chemistry cottonseed date detergents fats filing first history inform inform Magazine international inventor law magazine membe

271

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

272

Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

- - 532.1 532.1 See footnotes at end of table. 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State 356 Energy Information...

273

May 2011 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

May 2011 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News 266 Insect oils: nutritional and industrial applications Many

274

October 2010 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

October 2010 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News 598 Universal detectors for determination of lipids in biodiesel producti

275

2003 CBECS Detailed Tables: Summary  

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

the Tables | Estimation of Energy End-Use Consumption | CBECS Glossary | FAQs | Other Years: 1999 1995 1992 Complete Set of All Tables (Tables A1-A8, B1-B46, C1-C38, C1A-C38A,...

276

A Performance Analysis of Transposition-Table-Driven Work Scheduling in Distributed Search  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This paper discusses a new work-scheduling algorithm for parallel search of single-agent state spaces, called Transposition-Table-Driven Work Scheduling, that places the transposition table at the heart of the parallel work scheduling. The scheme results ... Keywords: Distributed search, single-agent search, work pushing, Transposition-Table-Driven Work Scheduling (TDS), IDA*

John W. Romein; Henri E. Bal; Jonathan Schaeffer; Aske Plaat

2002-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

277

FY 2006 Statistical Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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%

278

FY 2013 Laboratory Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

279

FY 2010 Statistical Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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 -- -- --

280

FY 2012 Statistical Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

FY 2007 Statistical Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

282

FY 2012 Laboratory Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

283

FY 2008 Statistical Table  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

284

Freeze drying method  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

The present invention provides methods and apparatus for freeze drying in which a solution, which can be a radioactive salt dissolved within an acid, is frozen into a solid on vertical plates provided within a freeze drying chamber. The solid is sublimated into vapor and condensed in a cold condenser positioned above the freeze drying chamber and connected thereto by a conduit. The vertical positioning of the cold condenser relative to the freeze dryer helps to help prevent substances such as radioactive materials separated from the solution from contaminating the cold condenser. Additionally, the system can be charged with an inert gas to produce a down rush of gas into the freeze drying chamber to also help prevent such substances from contaminating the cold condenser.

Coppa, Nicholas V. (Malvern, PA); Stewart, Paul (Youngstown, NY); Renzi, Ernesto (Youngstown, NY)

1999-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

285

Freeze drying apparatus  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The present invention provides methods and apparatus for freeze drying in which a solution, which can be a radioactive salt dissolved within an acid, is frozen into a solid on vertical plates provided within a freeze drying chamber. The solid is sublimated into vapor and condensed in a cold condenser positioned above the freeze drying chamber and connected thereto by a conduit. The vertical positioning of the cold condenser relative to the freeze dryer helps to help prevent substances such as radioactive materials separated from the solution from contaminating the cold condenser. Additionally, the system can be charged with an inert gas to produce a down rush of gas into the freeze drying chamber to also help prevent such substances from contaminating the cold condenser.

Coppa, Nicholas V. (Malvern, PA); Stewart, Paul (Youngstown, NY); Renzi, Ernesto (Youngstown, NY)

2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

286

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

287

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

288

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

289

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

290

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

291

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

292

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

293

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

294

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

295

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

296

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

297

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

298

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

299

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

300

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

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


301

Microsoft Word - table_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

302

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

303

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

304

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

305

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

306

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

307

Table of Contents  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

308

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

309

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

310

Residential Energy Consumption Survey Data Tables  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Below are historical data tables from the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). These tables cover the total number of households ...

311

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.

312

Combined Corex/DRI technology  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

A feasible steelmaking alternative, the Corex/direct reduction/electric arc furnace combination, provides an economic route for the production of high quality steel products. This combination is a major step into a new generation of iron and steel mills. These mills are based on the production of liquid steel using noncoking coal and comply with the increasing demands of environmental protection. The favorable production costs are based on: Utilization of Corex and DRI/HBI plants; Production of hot metal equal to blast furnace quality; Use of low cost raw materials such as noncoking coal and lump ore; Use of process gas as reducing agent for DRI/HBI production; and Use of electric arc furnace with high hot metal input as the steelmaking process. The high flexibility of the process permits the adjustment of production in accordance with the strategy of the steel mills. New but proven technologies and applications of the latest state of art steelmaking process, e.g., Corex, in conjunction with DRI production as basic raw material for an electric arc furnace, will insure high quality, high availability, optimized energy generation at high efficiency rates, and high product quality for steelmaking.

Flickenschild, A.J.; Reufer, F. [Deutsche Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau GmbH, Dusseldorf (Germany); Eberle, A.; Siuka, D. [Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau, Linz (Austria)

1996-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

313

Table 5.2 Crude Oil Production and Crude Oil Well ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table 5.2 Crude Oil Production and Crude Oil Well Productivity, 1954-2011: Year: Crude Oil Production: Crude Oil Well 1 Productivity: 48 States 2: ...

314

Table 40. No. 2 Diesel Fuel Prices by Sales Type, PAD District...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 233 Table 40. No. 2 Diesel Fuel Prices by Sales Type, PAD District, and Selected States (Cents per Gallon...

315

Table A6. Approximate Heat Rates for Electricity, and Heat Content ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

State energy information, detailed and overviews. Maps. ... Table A6. Approximate Heat Rates for Electricity, and Heat Content of Electricity, 1949-2011

316

Table 11.4 Nitrous Oxide Emissions, 1980-2009 (Thousand Metric ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

States 2009 (March 2011), Table 22; and EIA estimates based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories ...

317

Table D1. Population, U.S. Gross Domestic Product, and ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table D1. Population, U.S. Gross Domestic Product, and Implicit Price Deflator, 1949-2011: Year: Population: U.S. Gross Domestic Product: United States 1

318

EIA - Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Table-Figure Notes and Sources  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

A1. Notes and Sources A1. Notes and Sources Tables Chapter 1: Greenhouse gas emissions overview Table 1. U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, based on global warming potential, 1990-2009: Sources: Emissions: EIA estimates. Data in this table are revised from the data contained in the previous EIA report, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2008, DOE/EIA-0573(2008) (Washington, DC, December 2009). Global warming potentials: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Errata (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008), website http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Errata_2008-12-01.pdf. Table 2. U.S. greenhouse gas intensity and related factors, 1990-2009: Sources: Emissions: EIA estimates. Data in this table are revised from the

319

Preliminary investigation of two areas in New York State in terms of possible potential for hot dry rock geothermal energy. [Adirondack Mountains and Catskill Mountains  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Two areas in New York State were studied in terms of possible long range potential for geothermal energy: the Adirondack Mountains which are undergoing contemporary doming, and an anomalous circular feature centered on Panther Mountain in the Catskill Mountains. The Adirondack Mountains constitute an anomalously large, domical uplift on the Appalachian foreland. The domical configuration of the area undergoing uplift, combined with subsidence at the northeastern perimeter of the dome, argues for a geothermal rather than glacioisostatic origin. A contemporary hot spot near the crust-mantle boundary is proposed as the mechanism of doming, based on analogy with uplifts of similar dimensions elsewhere in the world, some of which have associated Tertiary volcanics. The lack of thermal springs in the area, or high heat flow in drill holes up to 370 m deep, indicates that the front of the inferred thermal pulse must be at some depth greater than 1 km. From isopach maps by Rickard (1969, 1973), it is clear that the present Adirondack dome did not come into existence until sometime after Late Devonian time. Strata younger than this are not present to provide further time stratigraphic refinement of this lower limit. However, the consequent radial drainage pattern in the Adirondacks suggests that the dome is a relatively young tectonic feature. Using arguments based on fixed hot spots in central Africa, and the movement of North American plate, Kevin Burke (Appendix I) suggests that the uplift may be less than 4 m.y. old.The other area of interest, the Panther Mountain circular feature in the Catskill Mountains, was studied using photogeology, gravity and magnetic profiling, gravity modeling, conventional field methods, and local shallow seismic refraction profiling.

Isachsen, Y.W.

1978-09-27T23:59:59.000Z

320

Engineering Tables: Polymeric Materials  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Table 6   Chemical resistance ratings for selected plastics and metals...B A A C C C ? B C A A A Miscellaneous Detergents Laundry and dishwashing detergents, soaps A ? A ? B ? ? A A A ? B A ? A A B Inorganic salts Zinc chloride, cupric sulfate B B B ? A ? ? A ? A ? ? A A B B B Oxidizing agents, strong 30% hydrogen peroxide, bromine (wet) C C C ? C ? B B ? C ? ? A ? C C C...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

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

322

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

323

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

324

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

325

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

326

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

327

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

328

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

329

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

330

Microsoft Word - Table_24pub.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 State Dry Production Total Consumption Alabama ............................................................... 1.80 1.64 Alaska .................................................................. 2.26 1.82 Arizona................................................................. 0 1.09 Arkansas .............................................................. 0.85 1.05 California .............................................................. 1.83 9.88 Colorado............................................................... 4.27 2.02 Connecticut .......................................................... 0 0.77 District Of Columbia ............................................. 0 0.14 Delaware .............................................................. 0 0.23

331

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

332

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

333

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

334

CARINA Data Table  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

335

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:

336

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

337

March 2012 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

March 2012 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News March 2012 World supplies of rapeseed and canola likely to remain tight in the 201

338

1993 Housing Characteristics -Detailed Tables  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Within each section, except for Air-conditioning and Light Usage, ... the Light Usage section includes a table that describes indoor light usage by ...

339

Characteristics of truth tables - CECM  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Nov 19, 1997... fairly straightforward because each row represents an assignment of truth values ... A truth table is a standard binary ordering of 2-partitions.

340

EIA Table E.1C  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

AC Argentina AR Aruba AA Bahamas, The BF Barbados BB Belize BH Bolivia BL Brazil BR Cayman Islands CJ ... World Total ww NA - - Table Posted: December 19, 2008

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

2011 22 Table of for  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

2011 60 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Natural Gas Annual Table 22. Number of natural gas industrial consumers by type of ...

342

Faculty Search Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

October 28 2009 Faculty Search Committee Procedures Handbook #12;#12;#12;Table of Contents........................................................................................................................7 Charge to Search Committee................................................................................................................................8 Role of the Search Committee Chair

New Mexico, University of

343

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

344

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."

345

Dry piston coal feeder  

SciTech Connect

This invention provides a solids feeder for feeding dry coal to a pressurized gasifier at elevated temperatures substantially without losing gas from the gasifier by providing a lock having a double-acting piston that feeds the coals into the gasifier, traps the gas from escaping, and expels the trapped gas back into the gasifier.

Hathaway, Thomas J. (Belle Meade, NJ); Bell, Jr., Harold S. (Madison, NJ)

1979-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

346

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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%

347

Reviews, Tables, and Plots  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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)

348

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

349

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

350

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

351

Table of Contents  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

352

Engineering Tables: Reinforcement Materials  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Table 1   Properties of key reinforcement materials...3 GPa 10 6 psi GPa 10 6 psi GPa 10 6 psi Carbon fiber (pitch) E = 55 ? 10 6 psi 2.0 0.072 380 55 ? ? 190 28 E = 75 ? 10 6 psi 2.0 0.072 520 75 ? ? 260 38 E = 100 ? 10 6 psi 2.2 0.078 690 100 5 0.7 314 46 E = 120 ? 10 6 psi 2.2 0.078 830 120 5 0.7 377 55 E = 130 ? 10 6 psi 2.2 0.078 895 130 5 0.7 407...

353

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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.

354

Hot-dry-rock geothermal resource 1980  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

The work performed on hot dry rock (HDR) geothermal resource evaluation, site characterization, and geophysical exploration techniques is summarized. The work was done by region (Far West, Pacific Northwest, Southwest, Rocky Mountain States, Midcontinent, and Eastern) and limited to the conterminous US.

Heiken, G.; Goff, F.; Cremer, G. (ed.)

1982-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

355

Use of solid-state NMR techniques for the analysis of water in coal and the effect of different coal drying techniques on the structure and reactivity of coal  

SciTech Connect

The overall objectives of this study are to develop an NMR method for measuring the water in coal, to measure the changes in coal structure that occur during coal drying, to determine what effect water has on retrograde/condensation reactions, and to determine the mechanism by which water may enhance coal reactivity toward liquefaction. Different methods of drying will be investigated to determine if drying can be accomplished without destroying coal reactivity toward liquefaction, thereby making coal drying an attractive and economical method for coal pretreatment. Coal drying methods will include thermal drying under different atmospheres and temperatures, drying with microwave radiation, and low-temperature chemical dehydration. The objective for this quarterly report were (1) to determine the limit of detection of water by NMR, (2) to determine the reproducibility of the NMR integration method using the Lab Cal {sup {trademark}} PC software, (3) to determine the amount of water in standard solutions, and (4) to determine the amount of water in a coal sample. The studies performed this last quarter have shown that the {sup 1}H NMR method for determining water in a coal sample via the reaction with 2,2-dimethoxypropane will be suitable for determining the water content in coals. The method should be most suitable for coals having low moisture content; that is, those coals which have been subjected to other drying techniques. 9 refs., 1 tab.

Netzel, D.A.

1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

356

1997 Housing Characteristics Tables Housing Unit Tables  

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

Million U.S. Households; 45 pages, 128 kb) Million U.S. Households; 45 pages, 128 kb) Contents Pages HC1-1a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Climate Zone, Million U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-2a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Year of Construction, Million U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-3a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Household Income, Million U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-5a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-6a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Rented Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-7a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, Million U.S. Households, 1997 4

357

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.

358

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

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

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

359

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

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

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

360

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

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

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

Microsoft Word - table_A2.doc  

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

4 4 Figure A1. Natural gas processing plant capacity in the United States, 2013 2012 Table A2. Natural gas processing plant capacity, by state, 2013 (million cubic feet per day) Alabama 1,403 Arkansas 24 California 926 Colorado 5,450 Florida 90 Illinois 2,100 Kansas 1,818 Kentucky 240 Louisiana 10,737 Michigan 479 Mississippi 1,123 State Plant Capacity Notes: Coverage includes the Lower 48 States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-757, "Natural Gas Processing Plant Survey." State Plant Capacity Montana 161 New Mexico 3,149 North Dakota 660 Ohio 10 Oklahoma 4,976 Pennsylvania 369

362

Hot Dry Rock - Summary  

SciTech Connect

Hot Dry Rock adds a new flexibility to the utilization of geothermal energy. Almost always the approach has been to limit that utilization to places where there is a natural source of water associated with a source of heat. Actually, the result was that steam was mined. Clearly there are much larger heat resources available which lack natural water to transport that energy to the surface. Also, as is found in hydrothermal fields being mined for steam, the water supply finally gets used up. There is a strong motive in the existing capital investment to revitalize those resources. Techniques for introducing, recovering and utilizing the water necessary to recover the heat from below the surface of the earth is the subject of this session. Implicit in that utilization is the ability to forecast with reasonable accuracy the busbar cost of that energy to the utility industry. The added element of supplying the water introduces costs which must be recovered while still supplying energy which is competitive. Hot Dry Rock technology can supply energy. That has been proved long since. The basic barrier to its use by the utility industry has been and remains proof to the financial interests that the long term cost is competitive enough to warrant investment in a technology that is new to utility on-grid operations. As the opening speaker for this session states, the test that is underway will ''simulate the operations of a commercial facility in some ways, but it will not show that energy from HDR can be produced at a variety of locations with different geological settings''. Further, the Fenton Hill system is a research facility not designed for commercial production purposes, but it can give indications of how the system must be changed to provide economic HDR operations. And so it is that we must look beyond the long term flow test, at the opportunities and challenges. Proving that the huge HDR resources can be accessed on a worldwide scale must involve the construction of additional sites, preferably to the specifications of the now Federal geothermal community. These facilities will have to be engineered to produce and market energy at competitive prices. At the same time, we must not rest on our technological laurels, though they be many. Design and operational techniques have been conceived which could lead to improved economics and operations for HDR. These must be pursued and where merit is found, vigorously pursued. Accelerated research and development ought to include revolutionary drilling techniques, reservoir interrogation, and system modeling to assure the competitiveness and geographical diversity of applications of HDR. Much of this work will be applicable to the geothermal industry in general. More advanced research ought to include such innovations as the utilization of other operating fluids. Supercritical carbon dioxide and the ammonia/water (Kalina) cycle have been mentioned. But even as the near and more distant outlook is examined, today's work was reported in the HDR session. The start-up operations for the current test series at the Fenton Hill HDR Pilot Plant were described. The surface plant is complete and initial operations have begun. While some minor modifications to the system have been required, nothing of consequence has been found to impede operations. Reliability, together with the flexibility and control required for a research system were shown in the system design, and demonstrated by the preliminary results of the plant operations and equipment performance. Fundamental to the overall success of the HDR energy resource utilization is the ability to optimize the pressure/flow impedance/time relationships as the reservoir is worked. Significant new insights are still being developed out of the data which will substantially affect the operational techniques applied to new systems. However, again, these will have to be proved to be general and not solely specific to the Fenton Hill site. Nevertheless, high efficiency use of the reservoir without unintended reservoir grow

Tennyson, George P. Jr.

1992-03-24T23:59:59.000Z

363

The use of solid-state NMR techniques for the analysis of water in coal and the effect of different coal drying techniques on the structure and reactivity of coal. Quarterly report, March 1--May 31, 1993  

SciTech Connect

The overall objectives of this study are to develop an NMR method for measuring the water in coal, to measure the changes in coal structure that occur during coal drying, to determine what effect water has on retrograde/condensation reactions, and to determine the mechanism by which water may impact coal reactivity toward liquefaction. Different methods of drying are being investigated to determine if drying can be accomplished without destroying coal reactivity toward liquefaction. The objectives for this quarterly report period were to (1) determine the kinetics of chemical dehydration of coals, (2) measure the volumetric, swelling ratio for initial and dried coals, and (3) determine the coal liquefaction yield for dried coals.

Netzel, D.A.

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

364

EIA - State Electricity Profiles - Energy Information Administration  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Maps. Maps by energy source and topic, ... Solar Energy in Brief. ... More Tables on United States's Electricity Profile: Formats;

365

State  

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

Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, September 2013 Biodiesel Producers and Production Capacity by State, September 2013 State Number of Producers Annual Production Capacity (million gallons per year) Alabama 3 47 Alaska - - Arizona 1 2 Arkansas 3 85 California

366

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

367

ARM - Instrument - s-table  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

368

state  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

NIST. state. (definition). Definition: The condition of a finite state machine or Turing machine at a certain time. Informally, the content of memory. ...

2013-11-08T23:59:59.000Z

369

1997 Housing Characteristics Tables Housing Unit Tables  

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

Percent of U.S. Households; 45 pages, 121 kb) Percent of U.S. Households; 45 pages, 121 kb) Contents Pages HC1-1b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Climate Zone, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-2b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Year of Construction, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-3b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Household Income, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 4 HC1-4b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-5b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-6b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Rented Housing Unit, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 3 HC1-7b. Housing Unit Characteristics by Four Most Populated States, Percent of U.S. Households, 1997 4

370

Session: Hot Dry Rock  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

This session at the Geothermal Energy Program Review X: Geothermal Energy and the Utility Market consisted of four presentations: ''Hot Dry Rock - Summary'' by George P. Tennyson, Jr.; ''HDR Opportunities and Challenges Beyond the Long Term Flow Test'' by David V. Duchane; ''Start-Up Operations at the Fenton Hill HDR Pilot Plant'' by Raymond F. Ponden; and ''Update on the Long-Term Flow Testing Program'' by Donald W. Brown.

Tennyson, George P. Jr.; Duchane, David V.; Ponden, Raymond F.; Brown, Donald W.

1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

371

Drying of fiber webs  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

A process and an apparatus for high-intensity drying of fiber webs or sheets, such as newsprint, printing and writing papers, packaging paper, and paperboard or linerboard, as they are formed on a paper machine. The invention uses direct contact between the wet fiber web or sheet and various molten heat transfer fluids, such as liquified eutectic metal alloys, to impart heat at high rates over prolonged durations, in order to achieve ambient boiling of moisture contained within the web. The molten fluid contact process causes steam vapor to emanate from the web surface, without dilution by ambient air; and it is differentiated from the evaporative drying techniques of the prior industrial art, which depend on the uses of steam-heated cylinders to supply heat to the paper web surface, and ambient air to carry away moisture, which is evaporated from the web surface. Contact between the wet fiber web and the molten fluid can be accomplished either by submersing the web within a molten bath or by coating the surface of the web with the molten media. Because of the high interfacial surface tension between the molten media and the cellulose fiber comprising the paper web, the molten media does not appreciately stick to the paper after it is dried. Steam generated from the paper web is collected and condensed without dilution by ambient air to allow heat recovery at significantly higher temperature levels than attainable in evaporative dryers.

Warren, David W. (9253 Glenoaks Blvd., Sun Valley, CA 91352)

1997-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

372

Drying of fiber webs  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

A process and an apparatus are disclosed for high-intensity drying of fiber webs or sheets, such as newsprint, printing and writing papers, packaging paper, and paperboard or linerboard, as they are formed on a paper machine. The invention uses direct contact between the wet fiber web or sheet and various molten heat transfer fluids, such as liquefied eutectic metal alloys, to impart heat at high rates over prolonged durations, in order to achieve ambient boiling of moisture contained within the web. The molten fluid contact process causes steam vapor to emanate from the web surface, without dilution by ambient air; and it is differentiated from the evaporative drying techniques of the prior industrial art, which depend on the uses of steam-heated cylinders to supply heat to the paper web surface, and ambient air to carry away moisture, which is evaporated from the web surface. Contact between the wet fiber web and the molten fluid can be accomplished either by submersing the web within a molten bath or by coating the surface of the web with the molten media. Because of the high interfacial surface tension between the molten media and the cellulose fiber comprising the paper web, the molten media does not appreciatively stick to the paper after it is dried. Steam generated from the paper web is collected and condensed without dilution by ambient air to allow heat recovery at significantly higher temperature levels than attainable in evaporative dryers. 6 figs.

Warren, D.W.

1997-04-15T23:59:59.000Z

373

C:\\WEBSHARE\\WWWROOT\\forecastactuals\\tables2_18.wpd  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Tables 2 through 18 Table 2. Total Energy Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption,...

374

FY 2014 Budget Request Summary Table | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

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

375

Microsoft Word - table_B2.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table B2. Thermal conversion factors and data, 2007-2011 Conversion Factor (Btu per cubic foot) Production Marketed 1,102 1,100 1,101 R 1,098 1,094 Extraction Loss 2,648 2,643 2,627 R 2,598 2,550 Total Dry Production 1,027 1,027 1,025 1,023 1,022 Supply Dry Production 1,027 1,027 1,025 1,023 1,022 Receipts at U.S. Borders Imports 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Intransit Receipts 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 1,025 Withdrawals from Storage Underground Storage 1,027 1,027 1,025 1,023 1,022 LNG Storage 1,027 1,027 1,025 1,023 1,022 Supplemental Gas Supplies 1,027 1,027 1,025 1,023 1,022 Balancing Item 1,093 548 1,272 R 793 1,163 Total Supply NA NA NA NA NA

376

Use of solid-state NMR techniques for the analysis of water in coal and the effect of different coal drying techniques on the structure and reactivity of coal  

SciTech Connect

The overall objectives of this study are to develop an NMR method for measuring the water in coal, to measure the changes in coal structure that occur during coal drying, to determine what effect water has on retrograde/condensation reaction, and to determine the mechanism by which water any enhance coal reactivity toward liquefaction. Different methods of drying will be investigated to determine if drying can be accomplished without destroying coal reactivity toward liquefaction, thereby making coal drying an attractive and economical method for coal pretreatment. Coal drying methods will include thermal drying under different atmosphere and temperatures, drying with microwave radiation, and low-temperature chemical dehydration. The objectives for this quarterly report period were (1) to hire a student to help on the program, (2) to define the coals to be investigated and acquire the samples, (3) to order the necessary reagents and supplies, and (4) to conduct preliminary experiments for determining quantitatively using 2,2{prime}-dimethoxypropane and {sup 1}H NMR.

Netzel, D.A.

1991-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

377

Use of solid-state NMR techniques for the analysis of water in coal and the effect of different coal drying techniques on the structure and reactivity of coal. Quarterly report, September 1--November 30, 1991  

SciTech Connect

The overall objectives of this study are to develop an NMR method for measuring the water in coal, to measure the changes in coal structure that occur during coal drying, to determine what effect water has on retrograde/condensation reaction, and to determine the mechanism by which water any enhance coal reactivity toward liquefaction. Different methods of drying will be investigated to determine if drying can be accomplished without destroying coal reactivity toward liquefaction, thereby making coal drying an attractive and economical method for coal pretreatment. Coal drying methods will include thermal drying under different atmosphere and temperatures, drying with microwave radiation, and low-temperature chemical dehydration. The objectives for this quarterly report period were (1) to hire a student to help on the program, (2) to define the coals to be investigated and acquire the samples, (3) to order the necessary reagents and supplies, and (4) to conduct preliminary experiments for determining quantitatively using 2,2{prime}-dimethoxypropane and {sup 1}H NMR.

Netzel, D.A.

1991-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

378

The use of solid-state NMR techniques for the analysis of water in coal and the effect of different coal drying techniques on the structure and reactivity of coal. Quarterly report, June 1--August 31, 1993  

SciTech Connect

One area for improvement in the economics of coal liquefaction is coal drying, particularly for the lower rank coals. However, there is considerable evidence to show that drying has a detrimental effect on the liquefaction behavior of coals. Regarding the liquefaction of coal, there does not appear to have been any systematic study of the methods of coal drying on coal structure and the role water plays in enhancing or lessening coal reactivity toward liquefaction. To conduct this study two coals, the North Dakota Beulah Zap lignite and the Utah Blind Canyon coals were chosen. These coals represent a low and high rank coal, respectively. In addition, the Beulah Zap lignite has a high moisture content whereas the Blind Canyon coal (hvA) bituminous has a very low moisture content. The overall objectives of this study are to develop a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) method for measuring the water in coal, to measure the changes in coal structure that occur during coal drying, to determine what effect water has on retrograde/condensation reactions, and to determine the mechanism by which water may impact coal reactivity toward liquefaction. Different methods of drying are being investigated to determine if drying can be accomplished without destroying coal reactivity toward liquefaction. The objectives for this quarterly report period were (1) to measure the volumetric swelling ratio for initial and chemically-dried coals and (2) to conduct preliminary experiments concerning the exchange of water in coal with deuterium oxide (D{sub 2}O).

Netzel, D.A.

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

379

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

380

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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_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

382

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

383

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

384

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

385

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

386

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

387

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

388

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

389

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

390

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

391

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

392

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

393

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

394

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

395

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

396

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

397

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

398

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

399

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

400

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

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

402

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

403

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

404

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

405

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

406

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

407

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

408

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

409

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

410

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

411

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

412

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

413

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

414

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

415

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 --

416

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

417

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

418

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

419

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

420

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

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

422

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

423

State  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

State NIST. Weights and Measures. Laboratories. Program Handbook. NIST Handbook 143. March 2003. Preface. The National ...

2010-11-30T23:59:59.000Z

424

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

425

Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

... The workshop attracted a diverse and wide-ranging mix of over 250 ... Rachel Levinson Arizona State University ... Dale Lombardo GE Energy ...

2012-06-22T23:59:59.000Z

426

Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

... Arizona State University ... close data gap; global climate modeling Energy: Energy use and ... for scattering and absorption of mixed particles, non ...

2012-01-12T23:59:59.000Z

427

Table of Contents...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

120(h) of CERCLA; and any other Federal, State, or local regulations have been met for residual radioactive material and any other hazardous substances. This applies whether...

428

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

429

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

430

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

431

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

432

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

433

Household Vehicles Energy Consumption 1994 - PDF Tables  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table 1 U.S. Number of Vehicles, Vehicle Miles, Motor Fuel Consumption and Expenditures, 1994 Table 2 U.S. per Household Vehicle Miles Traveled, Vehicle Fuel ...

434

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability nor responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

unknown authors

2002-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

435

Table CE4-7c. Water-Heating Energy Consumption in U.S. Households ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table CE4-7c. Water-Heating Energy Consumption in U.S. Households by Four Most Populated States, 1997 RSE Column Factor: Total U.S. Four Most Populated States

436

Table CE2-7e. Space-Heating Energy Expenditures in U.S. Households ...  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table CE2-7e. Space-Heating Energy Expenditures in U.S. Households by Four Most Populated States, 2001 RSE Column Factor: Total U.S. Four Most Populated States

437

Method of drying articles  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

A method of drying a green particulate article includes the steps of: (a) Providing a green article which includes a particulate material and a pore phase material, the pore phase material including a solvent; and (b) contacting the green article with a liquid desiccant for a period of time sufficient to remove at least a portion of the solvent from the green article, the pore phase material acting as a semipermeable barrier to allow the solvent to be sorbed into the liquid desiccant, the pore phase material substantially preventing the liquid desiccant from entering the pores. 3 figs.

Janney, M.A.; Kiggans, J.O. Jr.

1999-03-23T23:59:59.000Z

438

Method of drying articles  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

A method of drying a green particulate article includes the steps of: a. Providing a green article which includes a particulate material and a pore phase material, the pore phase material including a solvent; and b. contacting the green article with a liquid desiccant for a period of time sufficient to remove at least a portion of the solvent from the green article, the pore phase material acting as a semipermeable barrier to allow the solvent to be sorbed into the liquid desiccant, the pore phase material substantially preventing the liquid desiccant from entering the pores.

Janney, Mark A. (Knoxville, TN); Kiggans, Jr., James O. (Oak Ridge, TN)

1999-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

439

Session: Hot Dry Rock  

SciTech Connect

This session at the Geothermal Energy Program Review X: Geothermal Energy and the Utility Market consisted of four presentations: ''Hot Dry Rock - Summary'' by George P. Tennyson, Jr.; ''HDR Opportunities and Challenges Beyond the Long Term Flow Test'' by David V. Duchane; ''Start-Up Operations at the Fenton Hill HDR Pilot Plant'' by Raymond F. Ponden; and ''Update on the Long-Term Flow Testing Program'' by Donald W. Brown.

Tennyson, George P. Jr.; Duchane, David V.; Ponden, Raymond F.; Brown, Donald W.

1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

440

Table Definitions, Sources, and Explanatory Notes  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves Dry Natural Gas Proved Reserves Definitions Key Terms Definition Acquisitions The volume of proved reserves gained by the purchase of an existing fields or properties, from the date of purchase or transfer. Adjustments The quantity which preserves an exact annual reserves balance within each State or State subdivision of the following form: Adjustments + Revision Increases - Revision Decreases - Sales + Acquisitions + Extensions + New Field Discoveries + New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields - Report Year Production = Published Proved Reserves at End of Report Year These adjustments are the yearly changes in the published reserve estimates that cannot be attributed to the estimates for other reserve change categories because of the survey and statistical estimation methods employed. For example, variations as a result of changes in the operator frame, different random samples or imputations for missing or unreported reserve changes, could contribute to adjustments.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

May 2012 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

May 2012 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News May 2012 Chocolate science Chocolate may be soft, but the science behind it is not. This issue features the latest research on this delectable topic....

442

April 2012 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

April 2012 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News April 2012 Letter from the president Outgoing AOCS President Erich Dumelin reviews progress in 2011 and looks forward to the organizations inc

443

March 2011 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

March 2011 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News 126 Innovative, sustainable consumption: A challenge for the entire value chain In our continuing coverage of the 7th World Conference on Detergents,

444

1997 Consumption and Expenditures Tables  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table CE4-1e. Water-Heating Energy Expenditures in U.S. Households by Climate Zone, 1997 RSE Column Factor: Total Climate Zone1 RSE Row Factors Fewer than 2,000 CDD ...

445

June 2012 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

June 2012 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News June 2012 Science and modern art Oil paintings produced after the industrialization of paint manufacture often are more vulnerable to degradation than

446

Table H.1co2  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

AC Argentina AR Aruba AA Bahamas, The BF Barbados BB Belize BH Bolivia BL ... Table H.1co2 World Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil ...

447

April 2011 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

April 2011 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News 186 Letter from the president Outgoing AOCS President J. Keith Grime reviews progress made in 2010 and looks forward to the organization's incre

448

September 2012 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

September 2012 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News September 2012 Nanoscale oil confinement in fat crystal networks: Why puff pastries are a new frontier for theoretical physicists A theoretical p

449

1997 Consumption and Expenditures Tables  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Table CE5-1e. Appliances1 Energy Expenditures in U.S. Households by Climate Zone, 1997 RSE Column Factor: Total Climate Zone2 RSE Row Factors Fewer than 2,000 CDD and --

450

February 2012 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

inform magazine February 2012 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News February 2012 66 Patrick Donnelly named CEO of AOCS Our new CEO, Patrick Donnelly, brings a passion for sci

451

October 2011 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

October 2011 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News 542 Soy and breast cancer Are soy foods safe for postmenopausal women who have had breast cancer? Associate Editor Catherine Watk

452

October 2012 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

October 2012 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News October 2012 The science behind optimal frying Understanding the frying process can lead to better food and fat quality, a higher degree of control

453

September 2011 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

September 2011 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News 478 IOM panel recommends tripling vitamin D intake: Panels conservative approach receives criticism The 102nd AOCS Annua

454

January 2012 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

inform magazine January 2012 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News January 2012 Oilseeds in Australia Australia is now one of the worlds top three exporters of canola oil. inform take

455

June 2010 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

June 2010 Table of Contents 330 AOCS 2.0 debuts A drum roll, please: The new AOCS web experience, otherwise known as AOCS 2.0, debuted in early May. Ca

456

August 2010 Table of Contents  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

August 2010 Table of Contents Inform Magazine Inform Archives News 471 Letter from the President AOCS President J. Keith Grime discusses the areas that AOCS will focus on in t

457

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.

458

Model-Generated Predictions of Dry Thunderstorm Potential  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Dry thunderstorms (those that occur without significant rainfall at the ground) are common in the interior western United States. Moisture drawn into the area from the Gulfs of Mexico and California is sufficient to form high-based thunderstorms. ...

Miriam L. Rorig; Steven J. McKay; Sue A. Ferguson; Paul Werth

2007-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

459

Table of Contents  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Oil & Natural Gas Technology Oil & Natural Gas Technology DOE Award No.: DE-NT0005638 Quarterly Report January-March 2010 Remote Sensing and Sea-Truth Measurements of Methane Flux to the Atmosphere (HYFLUX project) 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 April 30, 2010 Office of Fossil Energy Acknowledgment: "This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-NT0005638." Disclaimer: "This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor

460

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

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

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

462

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

463

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

464

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

465

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

466

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Gross Withdrawals Year and State From Gas Wells From Oil Wells Total Repressuring Vented And Flared Nonhydro- carbon Gases Removed Marketed Production Extraction Loss Dry Production 2000 Total ................ 17,726,056 6,447,820 24,173,875 3,379,661 91,232 505,472 20,197,511 1,015,542 19,181,969 2001 Total ................ 18,129,408 6,371,371 24,500,779 3,370,832 96,913 462,738 20,570,295 953,984 19,616,311 2002 Total ................ 17,794,858 6,146,420 23,941,279 3,455,145 99,178 502,176 19,884,780 956,992 18,927,788 2003 Total ................ R 17,881,802 6,237,176 R 24,118,978 3,547,781 98,113 498,724 R 19,974,360 875,816 R 19,098,544 2004 Total ................ 17,993,520 6,061,912 24,055,432 3,701,656 97,595 572,103 19,684,077 926,600 18,757,477 Alabama Total

467

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Broadcom , the pulse logo, Connecting everything , and the Connecting everything logo are among the trademarks of Broadcom Corporation and/or its affiliates in the United States, certain other countries and/ or the EU. Any other trademarks or trade names mentioned are the property of their respective owners.

unknown authors

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

468

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.

469

Annual Coal Distribution Tables  

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

and Foreign Distribution of U.S. Coal by State of Origin, 2001 and Foreign Distribution of U.S. Coal by State of Origin, 2001 State / Region Domestic Foreign Total Alabama 14,828 4,508 19,336 Alaska 825 698 1,524 Arizona 13,143 - 13,143 Arkansas 13 - 13 Colorado 32,427 894 33,321 Illinois 33,997 285 34,283 Indiana 36,714 - 36,714 Kansas 176 - 176 Kentucky Total 131,546 2,821 134,367 East 107,000 2,707 109,706 West 24,547 114 24,660 Louisiana 3,746 - 3,746 Maryland 4,671 319 4,990 Mississippi 475 - 475 Missouri 366 - 366 Montana 38,459 485 38,944 New Mexico 28,949 - 28,949 North Dakota 30,449 - 30,449 Ohio 25,463 12 25,475 Oklahoma 1,710 - 1,710 Pennsylvania Total 64,392 6,005 70,397 Anthracite 2,852 205 3,057 Bituminous 61,540 5,800 67,340 Tennessee 3,346 28 3,374 Texas 45,019 31 45,050 Utah 24,761 2,144 26,905 Virginia 25,685 7,071 32,756 Washington 4,623 - 4,623 West Virginia Total 144,584

470

Annual Coal Distribution Tables  

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

Foreign Distribution of U.S. Coal by Major Coal-Exporting States and Foreign Distribution of U.S. Coal by Major Coal-Exporting States and Destination, 2001 Coal-Exporting State and Destination Metallurgical Steam Total Alaska - 761 761 South Korea - 761 761 Alabama 4,667 167 4,834 Argentina 155 - 155 Belgium 989 - 989 Brazil 1,104 - 1,104 Bulgaria 82 - 82 Egypt 518 - 518 Italy 115 - 115 Netherlands 56 83 139 Spain 412 84 496 Turkey 581 - 581 United Kingdom 654 - 654 Kentucky 2,130 - 2,130 Canada 920 - 920 France 22 - 22 Iceland 9 - 9 Italy 430 - 430 Netherlands 417 - 417 Spain 9 - 9 United Kingdom 323 - 323 Pennsylvania 1,086 14,326 15,722 Belgium - 203 203 Brazil 372 - 373 Canada - 12,141 12,418 France - 84 84 Germany 495 165 661 Ireland - 136 136 Netherlands 219 879 1,097 Norway - - 7 Peru - - 21 Portugal - 634 634 United Kingdom - 85 85 Venezuela - - 3 Utah - 1,420 1,420 Japan - 1,334 1,334 Taiwan - 86 86 Virginia 4,531

471

Annual Coal Distribution Tables  

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

Domestic Distribution of U.S. Coal by Destination State, Domestic Distribution of U.S. Coal by Destination State, Consumer, Destination and Method of Transportation, 2001 (Thousand Short Tons) DESTINATION: Alabama State of Origin by Method of Transportation Electricity Generation Coke Plants Industrial Plants (Except Coke) Residential and Commercial Total Alabama 7,212 375 6,032 3 13,622 Railroad 2,613 170 4,607 - 7,390 River 3,867 - - - 3,867 Truck 732 205 1,424 3 2,365 Illinois 1,458 - - * 1,458 Railroad 167 - - - 167 River 1,291 - - - 1,291 Truck - - - * * Kentucky Total 2,277 - 262 - 2,539 Railroad 1,928 - 165 - 2,093 River 349 - 83 - 432 Truck - - 14 - 14 Eastern 843 - 262 - 1,105 Railroad 843 - 165 - 1,008 River - - 83 - 83 Truck - - 14 - 14 Western 1,435 - - - 1,435 Railroad 1,086 - - - 1,086 River 349 - - - 349 Pennsylvania Total 242 - 62 - 304 Great Lakes - - 60 - 60 Railroad - - * - * River 242 - -

472

RSE Table 7.4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.4  

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

4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.4;" 4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.4;" " Unit: Percents." " ",," "," ",," "," " "Economic",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and" "Characteristic(a)","Electricity","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal" ,"Total United States" "Value of Shipments and Receipts" "(million dollars)" " Under 20",8,21,14,7,9,13 " 20-49",4,6,15,4,13,4 " 50-99",3,6,4,3,6,8 " 100-249",3,8,17,2,5,7 " 250-499",4,1,9,7,1,37 " 500 and Over",1,7,4,1,1,1 "Total",2,3,7,2,1,11

473

Energy from hot dry rock  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

The Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy Program is described. The system, operation, results, development program, environmental implications, resource, economics, and future plans are discussed. (MHR)

Hendron, R.H.

1979-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

474

The use of solid-state NMR techniques for the analysis of water in coal and the effect of different coal drying techniques on the structure and reactivity of coal  

SciTech Connect

The results of measuring the change in moisture content of the Eagle Butte and Usebelli coals as a function of time are shown in Figure 1. As expected, the measured moisture content increases with time and reaches a maximum after about 8 hours. Two different types of sorbed water are removed sequentially. Free or surface sorbed water is rapidly removed followed by the water in the micropores of the coal as the reagents migrate into the pore structure. There appears to be an induction period of about 4 hours for the Eagle Butte coal before the moisture content increases more rapidly with time due to the reactions of the more tightly bound or pore'' water with the reagents. The chemical drying experiment was repeated twice for the Usebelli coal. In the first experiment, aliquots of the reaction mixture were removed sequentially, and in the second experiment separate coal samples were prepared and allowed to stand until the appropriate time for the NMR spectrum to be acquired. Excellent reproducibility was obtained. Both cools were thermally dried by heating to 110[degrees]C for 1 hour. The moisture content was determined by weight loss. Using the thermal drying method, the Eagle Butte coal had a moisture content of 16.6 wt % and the Usebelli coal a moisture content of 14.1 wt %. These values are near the moisture content of coal as determined by chemical drying.

Netzel, D.A.

1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

475

The use of solid-state NMR techniques for the analysis of water in coal and the effect of different coal drying techniques on the structure and reactivity of coal. Quarterly report, June 1, 1992--August 31, 1992  

SciTech Connect

The results of measuring the change in moisture content of the Eagle Butte and Usebelli coals as a function of time are shown in Figure 1. As expected, the measured moisture content increases with time and reaches a maximum after about 8 hours. Two different types of sorbed water are removed sequentially. Free or surface sorbed water is rapidly removed followed by the water in the micropores of the coal as the reagents migrate into the pore structure. There appears to be an induction period of about 4 hours for the Eagle Butte coal before the moisture content increases more rapidly with time due to the reactions of the more ``tightly bound or ``pore`` water with the reagents. The chemical drying experiment was repeated twice for the Usebelli coal. In the first experiment, aliquots of the reaction mixture were removed sequentially, and in the second experiment separate coal samples were prepared and allowed to stand until the appropriate time for the NMR spectrum to be acquired. Excellent reproducibility was obtained. Both cools were thermally dried by heating to 110{degrees}C for 1 hour. The moisture content was determined by weight loss. Using the thermal drying method, the Eagle Butte coal had a moisture content of 16.6 wt % and the Usebelli coal a moisture content of 14.1 wt %. These values are near the moisture content of coal as determined by chemical drying.

Netzel, D.A.

1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

476

Nature Bulletin Table of Contents  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

477

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

478

MTS Table Top Load frame  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (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

479

Offshore Wind Potential Tables  

Wind Powering America (EERE)

Offshore wind resource by state and wind speed interval within 50 nm of shore. Offshore wind resource by state and wind speed interval within 50 nm of shore. Wind Speed at 90 m (m/s) 7.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 8.0 8.0 - 8.5 8.5 - 9.0 9.0 - 9.5 9.5 - 10.0 >10.0 Total >7.0 State Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) Area km 2 (MW) California 11,439 (57,195) 24,864 (124,318) 23,059 (115,296) 22,852 (114,258) 13,185 (65,924) 15,231 (76,153) 6,926 (34,629) 117,555 (587,773) Connecticut 530 (2,652) 702 (3,508) 40 (201) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,272 (6,360) Delaware 223 (1,116) 724 (3,618) 1,062 (5,310) 931 (4,657) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2,940 (14,701) Georgia 3,820 (19,102) 7,741 (38,706) 523 (2,617) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 12,085 (60,425) Hawaii 18,873 (94,363) 42,298 (211,492)

480

Table of Contents  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

0.01.00 - 2000 0.01.00 - 2000 Software Configuration Management (SCM) A Practical Guide April 25, 2000 United States Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office Abstract This document provides a practical guide for integrating software configuration management disciplines into the management of software engineering projects. Software configuration management is the process of identifying and defining the software configuration items in a system, controlling the release and change of these items throughout the system lifecycle, recording and reporting the status of configuration items and change requests, and verifying the completeness and correctness of configuration items. Software Configuration Management: A Practical Guide 04/25/00 ii Acknowledgements

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state dry" 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

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

62.6 71.6 92.3 89.9 82.6 72.7 - 78.2 See footnotes at end of table. 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 56 Energy Information Administration ...

482

Performance Contracting and Energy Efficiency in the State Government Market  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

65 Figure 4. ESPC Project costs in case study20 Table 17. ESPC project costs by type of state government66 Table 37. ESPC Project costs by type of state facility in

Bharvirkar, Ranjit

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

483

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

484

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

485

KT Monograph Section B Table  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

traced#7;#7; Table B1:1 - Summary of a selection of previous surface surveys and collections in the Near East #12; Slopes of Tepe#7;Top of Tepe#7;Clustered#7;#7;Percentage Diagnostics#7;Small Stones - esp. NW & E#7;Late Roman/Byz. Sherds#7;#7;Trefoil Rims... #7;Terra Sigillata - esp. S & SW#7;Stone Artefacts#7;#7;Red Hittite Wares#7;Hellenistic Sherds#7;Architectural Fragments#7;#7;Total Sherds#7;#7;Large Stones#7;#7;Early Bronze Age#7;#7;#7;#7;Decorated Sherds#7;#7;#7;#7;Feature Sherds#7;#7;#7;#7; Table...

Thomas, D C

2004-12-09T23:59:59.000Z

486

Automatic Table Ground Truth Generation and a Background-Analysis-Based Table Structure Extraction  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

In this paper, we first describe an automatic table ground truth generation system which can efficiently generate a large amount of accurate table ground truth suitable for the development of table detection algorithms. Then a novel background-analysis-based, coarse-to-fine table identification algorithm and an X-Y cut table decomposition algorithm are described. We discuss an experimental protocol to evaluate the table detection algorithms. For a total of having vin table entities and a total cell entities, our table detection algorithm takes line, word segmentation results as input and obtains around cell correct detection rates.

Yalin Wang; Ihsin T. Phillips; Robert Haralick

2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

487

Random Table and Its Ground Truth Automatic Generation: A Tool for Table  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

We developed a software tool to assist table understanding research. It can analyze any given table ground truth and generate documents that include similar table elements while have more variety on both table and non-table parts. Based on our novel content matching ground truthing idea, the table ground truth data for the generated table elements become available with little manual work. The validity of the proposed strategy was confirmed by our table detection algorithm development. We made this software package publicly available.

Understanding Research Yalin; Yalin Wang

2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

488

Tables of Chemicals and Etchants  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Table 3   Designation of Etchants...p 255. (b) L.E. Samuels, J. Inst. Met., Vol 83, 1954??1955, p 359. (c) S.A. Manion and T.O. Mulhearn, Metallography, Vol 4, 1971, p 551...

489

Table Of Contents Section: Page  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

....................................................................15-6 15.E Rigging Hardware....................................................15-15 Tables: 15 the immediate work area and properly stored and maintained in a safe condition. 15.A.02 Hoist rope shall.04 When hoisting loads, a positive latching device shall be used to secure the load and rigging (e

US Army Corps of Engineers

490

Trip Table ?????? #UFOYMAA-#UFPBHZB  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

http://trip-table.com - /7faa9d44500591fbfecedcda9a9d9cf9/72b75372a04495579b32da4524a88ead.html ... Top page #UFOYMAA:?760XFpqqAg #UFOZAUQ:?GiyoPAoyp. #UFOZPPG ...

491

Trip Table ?????? #gopmusbo-#gopmxoap  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

http://trip-table.com - /de823d5fcb90885762f4a837a7fa1e4c/8ef5e7522a1014862421869a133710f6.html ... Top page #gopmusbo:?MyJIL5jza2 #gopmvgwe:?AGL/5xDjfA #gopmvvqu ...

492

Trip Table ?????? #PNQTORG-#PNQWKQH  

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

http://trip-table.com - /57be3958616c440476cf50b429b2476e/a2758b2d3ccf7339fa919b48ba7c1570.html ... Top page #PNQTORG:?oGcbIPIQ/2 #PNQUDLW:?QPKgjR/j7k #PNQUSGM ...

493

Dry deposition of pan to grassland vegetation  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Peroxyacetyl nitrate or PAN (CH{sub 3}C(O)OONO{sub 2}) is formed in the lower troposphere via photochemical reactions involving nitrogen oxides (NO{sub x}) and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs). PAN has a lifetime in the free troposphere of about three months and is removed by photolysis or reaction with OH. Dry deposition will decrease its lifetime, although the few measurements that have been made indicate that this process is slow. Measurements of the uptake of PAN by alfalfa in growth chambers indicated that the dry deposition velocity (downward flux divided by concentration at a specified height) was 0.75 cm s{sup {minus}1}. Garland and Penkett measured a dry deposition velocity of 0.25 cm s{sup {minus}1} for PAN to grass and soil in a return-flow wind tunnel. Shepson et al. (1992) analyzed trends of PAN and O{sub 3} concentrations in the stable nocturnal boundary layer over mixed deciduous/coniferous forests at night, when leaf stomata were closed, and concluded that the deposition velocity for PAN was at least 0.5 cm s{sup {minus}1}. We measured the dry deposition velocity of PAN to a grassland site in the midwestern United States with a modified Bowen ratio technique. Experiments were conducted on selected days during September, October, and November of 1990. An energy balance Bowen ratio station was used to observe the differences in air temperature and water vapor content between heights of 3.0 and 0.92 m and to evaluate the surface energy balance. Air samples collected at the same two heights in Teflon {reg_sign} bags were analyzed for PAN by a gas chromatographic technique. We present an example of the variations of PAN concentrations and gradients observed during the day and compare measurements of the dry deposition velocity to expectations based on the physicochemical properties of PAN.

Doskey, P.V.; Wesely, M.L.; Cook, D.R.; Gao, W.

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

494

table3.2  

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

Fuel Consumption, 2002; Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources; Unit: Trillion Btu. Total United States RSE Column Factors: 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 311 Food 1,116 230 13 19 575 5 184 1 90 7.6 311221 Wet Corn Milling 217 23 * * 61 * 121 0 11 1.2 31131 Sugar 111 2 2 1 22 * 37 1 46 1 311421 Fruit and Vegetable Canning 47 7 1 1 36 Q 0 0 1 12.5 312 Beverage and Tobacco Products 104 26 2 2 46 1 17 0 10 4.4 3121 Beverages 85 22 1 2 42 1 8 0 10 5.9 3122 Tobacco 19 4 1 * 4 * 10 0 * 1 313 Textile Mills 205 86 4 2 74 2 22 0 15 15.7 314 Textile Product Mills 60 17 2 Q 29 1 Q 0 Q 21.7 315 Apparel 30 12 * 1 16 * 0 0 * 23.2 316 Leather and Allied Products 7 2 * * 4 * 0 0 * 8.5 321 Wood Products 375 72 1 10 57 5 1 0 229 4.5 321113 Sawmills

495

table3.1  

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

Fuel Consumption, 2002; Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources; Unit: Physical Units or Btu. Total United States RSE Column Factors: 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 311 Food 1,116 67,521 2 3 560 1 8 * 90 7.6 311221 Wet Corn Milling 217 6,851 * * 59 * 5 0 11 1.2 31131 Sugar 111 725 * * 22 * 2 * 46 1 311421 Fruit and Vegetable Canning 47 1,960 * * 35 * 0 0 1 12.5 312 Beverage and Tobacco Products 104 7,639 * * 45 * 1 0 10 4.4 3121 Beverages 85 6,426 * * 41 * * 0 10 5.9 3122 Tobacco 19 1,213 * * 4 * * 0 * 1 313 Textile Mills 205 25,271 1 * 72 * 1 0 15 15.7 314 Textile Product Mills 60 4,875 * Q 28 * * 0 Q 21.7 315 Apparel 30 3,588 * * 16 * 0 0 * 23.2 316 Leather and Allied Products 7 716 * * 4 * 0 0 * 8.5 321 Wood Products

496

"RSE Table E13.2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.2;"  

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

2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.2;" 2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.2;" " Unit: Percents." " ",,,"Renewable Energy" ,,,"(excluding Wood" "Economic","Total Onsite",,"and" "Characteristic(a)","Generation","Cogeneration(b)","Other Biomass)(c)","Other(d)" ,"Total United States" "Value of Shipments and Receipts" "(million dollars)" " Under 20",15,15,58,37 " 20-49",17,19,27,7 " 50-99",6,6,5,9 " 100-249",7,7,25,4 " 250-499",2,2,0,0 " 500 and Over",1,1,0,1 "Total",2,2,15,1 "Employment Size" " Under 50",16,16,90,35

497

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

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

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

498

"RSE Table N1.3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N1.3;"  

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

.3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N1.3;" .3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N1.3;" " Unit: Percents." " "," " ,"Total" "Energy Source","First Use" ,"Total United States" "Coal ",3 "Natural Gas",1 "Net Electricity",1 " Purchases",1 " Transfers In",9 " Onsite Generation from Noncombustible Renewable Energy",15 " Sales and Transfers Offsite",3 "Coke and Breeze",2 "Residual Fuel Oil",4 "Distillate Fuel Oil",5 "Liquefied Petroleum Gases and Natural Gas Liquids",1 "Other",2 " Asphalt and Road Oil (a)",0 " Lubricants (a)",0 " Naphtha < 401 Degrees (a)",0

499

"RSE Table N13.3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.3;"  

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

3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.3;" 3. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.3;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ","Total of" "NAICS"," ","Sales and","Utility","Nonutility" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Transfers Offsite","Purchaser(b)","Purchaser(c)" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"Food",8,9,0 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0 312,"Beverage and Tobacco Products",0,0,0 313,"Textile Mills",0,0,0 313210," Broadwoven Fabric Mills",0,0,0 314,"Textile Product Mills",90,90,0 315,"Apparel",0,0,0 316,"Leather and Allied Products",0,0,0

500

"RSE Table E13.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.1;"  

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

1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.1;" 1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E13.1;" " Unit: Percents." " ",," "," ",," " ,,,,"Sales and","Net Demand" "Economic",,,"Total Onsite","Transfers","for" "Characteristic(a)","Purchases","Transfers In(b)","Generation(c)","Offsite","Electricity(d)" ,"Total United States" "Value of Shipments and Receipts" "(million dollars)" " Under 20",4,52,15,4,4 " 20-49",2,14,17,33,2 " 50-99",2,31,6,10,2 " 100-249",1,13,7,9,1 " 250-499",2,2,2,1,2 " 500 and Over",1,2,1,1,1