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

State Energy Production Estimates  

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

State Energy Production Estimates 1960 Through 2012 2012 Summary Tables Table P1. Energy Production Estimates in Physical Units, 2012 Alabama 19,455 215,710 9,525 0 Alaska 2,052...

2

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"

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Qualified Energy Conservation Bond State-by-State Summary Tables  

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

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

12

State Emissions Estimates  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Estimates of state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions Estimates of state energy-related carbon dioxide emissions Because energy-related carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) constitutes over 80 percent of total emissions, the state energy-related CO 2 emission levels provide a good indicator of the relative contribution of individual states to total greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) emissions estimates at the state level for energy-related CO 2 are based on data contained in the State Energy Data System (SEDS). 1 The state-level emissions estimates are based on energy consumption data for the following fuel categories: three categories of coal (residential/commercial, industrial, and electric power sector); natural gas; and ten petroleum products including-- asphalt and road oil, aviation gasoline, distillate fuel, jet fuel, kerosene, liquefied petroleum gases

13

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

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

TABLE 1. Nuclear Reactor, State, Type, Net Capacity, Generation, and Capacity Factor " "PlantReactor Name","Generator ID","State","Type","2009 Summer Capacity"," 2010 Annual...

14

Table E6. Transportation Sector Energy Price Estimates, 2012  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

E6. Transportation Sector Energy Price Estimates, 2012 (Dollars per Million Btu) State Primary Energy Retail Electricity Total Energy Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Total Aviation...

15

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

16

Characterization Of State Estimation Biases  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The control and operation of an electric power system is based on the ability to determine the state of the system in real time. State estimation (SE) has been introduced in the 1960s to achieve this objective. The initial implementation was based on ...

A. P. Sakis Meliopoulos; George K. Stefopoulos

2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

17

Is newer better? Penn World Table Revisions and their impact on growth estimates  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

This paper sheds light on two problems in the Penn World Table (PWT) GDP estimates. First, we show that these estimates vary substantially across different versions of the PWT despite being derived from very similar ...

Johnson, Simon

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 15. Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines, Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated Reserve by Mining Method,  

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

Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines, Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated Reserve by Mining Method, Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines, Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated Reserve by Mining Method, 2012 (million short tons) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2012 Table 15. Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines, Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated Reserve by Mining Method, 2012 (million short tons) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Annual Coal Report 2012 Underground - Minable Coal Surface - Minable Coal Total Coal-Resource State Recoverable Reserves at Producing Mines Estimated Recoverable Reserves Demonstrated Reserve Base Recoverable Reserves at Producing Mines Estimated Recoverable Reserves Demonstrated Reserve Base Recoverable Reserves at Producing Mines Estimated Recoverable Reserves Demonstrated Reserve Base

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

State energy data report 1994: Consumption estimates  

SciTech Connect

This document provides annual time series estimates of State-level energy consumption by major economic sector. The estimates are developed in the State Energy Data System (SEDS), operated by EIA. SEDS provides State energy consumption estimates to members of Congress, Federal and State agencies, and the general public, and provides the historical series needed for EIA`s energy models. Division is made for each energy type and end use sector. Nuclear electric power is included.

NONE

1996-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

22

Table C2. Energy Consumption Estimates for Major Energy Sources...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

in Physical Units, 2012 State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Power f Fuel Ethanol g Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel b LPG c Motor Gasoline d...

23

Table 4. Estimation Results for PAD District Regions  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4. Estimation Results for PAD District Regions 4. Estimation Results for PAD District Regions Dependent Variable: D(RETPAD1) Dependent Variable: D(RETPAD2) Dependent Variable: D(RETPAD3) Dependent Variable: D(RETPAD4) Dependent Variable: D(RETPAD5) Sample: 1/03/2000 to 6/24/2002 Sample: 1/03/2000 to 6/24/2002 Sample: 1/03/2000 to 6/24/2002 Sample: 6/15/1998 to 6/24/2002 Sample: 1/03/2000 to 6/24/2002 Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient C 0.008 C -0.019 C -0.015 C -0.030 C 0.049 (0.098) (0.199) (0.115) (0.087) (0.148) DSPOTPAD1(-1) 0.295*** DSPOTPAD2(-1) 0.671*** DSPOTPAD3(-1) 0.334*** DSPOTPAD4(-1) 0.132*** DSPOTPAD5(-1) 0.184*** (0.023) (0.034) (0.026) (0.021) (0.023)

24

State Estimation of the Micro-grid  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

For the goal of actual needs of power companies, this chapter develops a state estimation procedure of the micro-grid, using branch currents as state variables, ... In this chapter, an IEEE-33 nodes micro-grid is...

Jinling Lu; Guodong Zhu; Yuyang Miao

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

25

STATE ESTIMATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

CHAPTER 1 STATE ESTIMATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES O. Bernard1 , B. Chachuat2 , and J sensors (also called observers) for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). We give an overview model description (e.g., the 1 #12;2 STATE ESTIMATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES extended Kalman

Bernard, Olivier

26

Measurement enhancement for state estimation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

, the control center receives the system-wide device information and measurement data through the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. However, the information and measurement data provided by SCADA may not always be accurate and reliable... estimation use the measurement data from SCADA system, the status information about the circuit breakers (CB), switches and transformer taps, as well as the parameters of transmission lines, transformers, shunts capacitors/reactors and other devices...

Chen, Jian

2009-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

27

Parallel State Estimation Assessment with Practical Data  

SciTech Connect

This paper presents a full-cycle parallel state estimation (PSE) implementation using a preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm. The developed code is able to solve large-size power system state estimation within 5 seconds using real-world data, comparable to the Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) rate. This achievement allows the operators to know the system status much faster to help improve grid reliability. Case study results of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) system with real measurements are presented. The benefits of fast state estimation are also discussed.

Chen, Yousu; Jin, Shuangshuang; Rice, Mark J.; Huang, Zhenyu

2014-10-31T23:59:59.000Z

28

Efficient Power System State Estimation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

measure the data from the system components such as transmission line power flows, bus power injections monitoring of power systems. 2. Background Power systems have four main components: transmission, sub-transmission failure or generator outages. In the normal insecure state, a system may not be able to handle

Lavaei, Javad

29

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.

30

State energy data report 1996: Consumption estimates  

SciTech Connect

The State Energy Data Report (SEDR) provides annual time series estimates of State-level energy consumption by major economic sectors. The estimates are developed in the Combined State Energy Data System (CSEDS), which is maintained and operated by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The goal in maintaining CSEDS is to create historical time series of energy consumption by State that are defined as consistently as possible over time and across sectors. CSEDS exists for two principal reasons: (1) to provide State energy consumption estimates to Members of Congress, Federal and State agencies, and the general public and (2) to provide the historical series necessary for EIA`s energy models. To the degree possible, energy consumption has been assigned to five sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and electric utility sectors. Fuels covered are coal, natural gas, petroleum, nuclear electric power, hydroelectric power, biomass, and other, defined as electric power generated from geothermal, wind, photovoltaic, and solar thermal energy. 322 tabs.

NONE

1999-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

31

Faculty Handbook Table of Contents 08/23/10 Page 1 Appalachian State University  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

for which the handbook does not provide answers. As policies, procedures, and operating guidelines whichFaculty Handbook ­ Table of Contents ­ 08/23/10 ­ Page 1 Appalachian State University FACULTY HANDBOOK Last Revised: August 23, 2010 Table of Contents FOREWORD The purpose of publishing the Faculty

Rose, Annkatrin

32

Sub-Second Parallel State Estimation  

SciTech Connect

This report describes the performance of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) sub-second parallel state estimation (PSE) tool using the utility data from the Bonneville Power Administrative (BPA) and discusses the benefits of the fast computational speed for power system applications. The test data were provided by BPA. They are two-days worth of hourly snapshots that include power system data and measurement sets in a commercial tool format. These data are extracted out from the commercial tool box and fed into the PSE tool. With the help of advanced solvers, the PSE tool is able to solve each BPA hourly state estimation problem within one second, which is more than 10 times faster than todays commercial tool. This improved computational performance can help increase the reliability value of state estimation in many aspects: (1) the shorter the time required for execution of state estimation, the more time remains for operators to take appropriate actions, and/or to apply automatic or manual corrective control actions. This increases the chances of arresting or mitigating the impact of cascading failures; (2) the SE can be executed multiple times within time allowance. Therefore, the robustness of SE can be enhanced by repeating the execution of the SE with adaptive adjustments, including removing bad data and/or adjusting different initial conditions to compute a better estimate within the same time as a traditional state estimators single estimate. There are other benefits with the sub-second SE, such as that the PSE results can potentially be used in local and/or wide-area automatic corrective control actions that are currently dependent on raw measurements to minimize the impact of bad measurements, and provides opportunities to enhance the power grid reliability and efficiency. PSE also can enable other advanced tools that rely on SE outputs and could be used to further improve operators actions and automated controls to mitigate effects of severe events on the grid. The power grid continues to grow and the number of measurements is increasing at an accelerated rate due to the variety of smart grid devices being introduced. A parallel state estimation implementation will have better performance than traditional, sequential state estimation by utilizing the power of high performance computing (HPC). This increased performance positions parallel state estimators as valuable tools for operating the increasingly more complex power grid.

Chen, Yousu; Rice, Mark J.; Glaesemann, Kurt R.; Wang, Shaobu; Huang, Zhenyu

2014-10-31T23:59:59.000Z

33

Distributed Robust Power System State Estimation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Deregulation of energy markets, penetration of renewables, advanced metering capabilities, and the urge for situational awareness, all call for system-wide power system state estimation (PSSE). Implementing a centralized estimator though is practically infeasible due to the complexity scale of an interconnection, the communication bottleneck in real-time monitoring, regional disclosure policies, and reliability issues. In this context, distributed PSSE methods are treated here under a unified and systematic framework. A novel algorithm is developed based on the alternating direction method of multipliers. It leverages existing PSSE solvers, respects privacy policies, exhibits low communication load, and its convergence to the centralized estimates is guaranteed even in the absence of local observability. Beyond the conventional least-squares based PSSE, the decentralized framework accommodates a robust state estimator. By exploiting interesting links to the compressive sampling advances, the latter jointly es...

Kekatos, Vassilis

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

34

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

55.1 47.1 W W 55.1 46.2 See footnotes at end of table. 42. Residual Fuel Oil Prices by PAD District and State Energy Information Administration Petroleum...

35

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

36

STATE ESTIMATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

CHAPTER 1 STATE ESTIMATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES O. Bernard1 , B. Chachuat2 , and J sensors (also called observers) for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). We give an overview in "Wastewater Quality Monitoring and Wastewater Quality Monitoring and Treatment, Philippe Quevauviller (Ed

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

37

PMU Deployment for Optimal State Estimation Performance  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

the benefits from data aggregation. Phasor Measurement Unit (PMU) is such an advanced device capablePMU Deployment for Optimal State Estimation Performance Yue Yang, Student Member IEEE, and Sumit are anticipated; however, due to the high cost of PMU installation, their deployment will continue to be selective

Roy, Sumit

38

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

39

Table 2. 2011 State energy-related carbon dioxide emisssions...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

2011 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...

40

Estimated United States Transportation Energy Use 2005  

SciTech Connect

A flow chart depicting energy flow in the transportation sector of the United States economy in 2005 has been constructed from publicly available data and estimates of national energy use patterns. Approximately 31,000 trillion British Thermal Units (trBTUs) of energy were used throughout the United States in transportation activities. Vehicles used in these activities include automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, buses, airplanes, rail, and ships. The transportation sector is powered primarily by petroleum-derived fuels (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel). Biomass-derived fuels, electricity and natural gas-derived fuels are also used. The flow patterns represent a comprehensive systems view of energy used within the transportation sector.

Smith, C A; Simon, A J; Belles, R D

2011-11-09T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

42

Louisiana State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated...  

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

Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

43

California State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated...  

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

Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) California State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0...

44

Miscellaneous States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production...  

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

Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Miscellaneous States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

45

Texas State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production...  

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

Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas State Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

46

Lower 48 States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production...  

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

Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Lower 48 States Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

47

Estimating Power System Dynamic States Using Extended Kalman Filter  

SciTech Connect

AbstractThe state estimation tools which are currently deployed in power system control rooms are based on a steady state assumption. As a result, the suite of operational tools that rely on state estimation results as inputs do not have dynamic information available and their accuracy is compromised. This paper investigates the application of Extended Kalman Filtering techniques for estimating dynamic states in the state estimation process. The new formulated dynamic state estimation includes true system dynamics reflected in differential equations, not like previously proposed dynamic state estimation which only considers the time-variant snapshots based on steady state modeling. This new dynamic state estimation using Extended Kalman Filter has been successfully tested on a multi-machine system. Sensitivity studies with respect to noise levels, sampling rates, model errors, and parameter errors are presented as well to illustrate the robust performance of the developed dynamic state estimation process.

Huang, Zhenyu; Schneider, Kevin P.; Nieplocha, Jaroslaw; Zhou, Ning

2014-10-31T23:59:59.000Z

48

Louisiana Block Grant Tables | Department of Energy  

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

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

49

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

50

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

51

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

52

Probabilistic state estimation in regimes of nonlinear error growth  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

State estimation, or data assimilation as it is often called, is a key component of numerical weather prediction (NWP). Nearly all implementable methods of state estimation suitable for NWP are forced to assume that errors ...

Lawson, W. Gregory, 1975-

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

53

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

54

Optimal phase estimation for qubits in mixed states  

SciTech Connect

We present the optimal phase estimation for qubits in mixed states, for an arbitrary number of qubits prepared in the same state.

D'Ariano, Giacomo Mauro; Macchiavello, Chiara; Perinotti, Paolo [QUIT Group of the INFM, unita di Pavia and Dipartimento di Fisica 'A. Volta', via Bassi 6, I-27100 Pavia (Italy)

2005-10-15T23:59:59.000Z

55

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

56

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

57

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Natural Gas Imports and Exports Energy Information Administration / Natural Gas Annual 2003 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 199 2000 2001 2002 2003 Percent 1998 1999 Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition"; Form EIA-64A, "Annual Report of the Origin of Natural Gas Liquids Production"; Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Natural Gas Imports and Exports; Form EIA-895, "Monthly Quantity and Value of Natural Gas Production Report," Form EIA-906, "Power Plant Report"; Form EIA-886, "Annual Survey of Alternative Fueled Vehicle Suppliers and Users"; and EIA estimates. Figure 5. Net Imports as a Percentage of Total Consumption of Natural Gas, 1999-2003

58

Table S1. Cotton extent and Mexican free-tailed bat population size per county. County State  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

File S1 Table S1. Cotton extent and Mexican free-tailed bat population size per county. County State Bat population size Mean cotton hectares* County State Bat population size Mean cotton hectares 28,255 4,127 *From 1990 to 2008 Table S2. Upland and Pima cotton price over time. Year Upland Cotton

Russell, Amy L.

59

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

60

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

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

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

62

Microsoft Word - NGAMaster_State_TablesNov12.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Electric Power 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 T e x a s C a l i f o r n i a F l o r i d a A l l O t h e r S t a t e s Trillion Cubic Feet 0 30 60 90 120 150 Billion Cubic Meters Industrial 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 T e x a s L o u i s i a n a C a l i f o r n i a A l l O t h e r S t a t e s Trillion Cubic Feet 0 30 60 90 120 150 Billion Cubic Meters Commercial 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 N e w Y o r k C a l i f o r n i a T e x a s A l l O t h e r S t a t e s Trillion Cubic Feet 0 30 60 90 120 150 Billion Cubic Meters Residential 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 C a l i f o r n i a I l l i n o i s N e w Y o r k A l l O t h e r S t a t e s Trillion Cubic Feet 0 30 60 90 120 150 Billion Cubic Meters Note: Vehicle fuel volume for 2003 was 18,346 million cubic feet. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition"; Form EIA-906, "Power Plant Report"; Form EIA-886, "Annual Survey of Alternative Fueled Service Vehicle Suppliers and Users"; and EIA estimates.

63

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

64

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

65

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

66

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

67

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

68

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

69

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

70

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

71

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

72

Mississippi Block Grant Tables | Department of Energy  

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

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

73

Hybrid Systems State estimation for hybrid systems: applications  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Hybrid Systems State estimation for hybrid systems: applications to aircraft tracking I. Hwang, H of a stochastic linear hybrid system, given only the continuous system output data, is studied. Well established techniques for hybrid estimation, known as the multiple model adaptive estimation algorithm

Tomlin, Claire

74

Production and analysis of a Southern Ocean state estimate  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

A modern general circulation model of the Southern Ocean with one-sixth of a degree resolution is optimized to the observed ocean in a weighted least squares sense. Convergence toward the state estimate solution is carried ...

Mazloff, Matthew R

2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

75

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

76

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

77

Estimate the Electromechanical States Using Particle Filtering and Smoothing  

SciTech Connect

Accurate knowledge of electromechanical states is critical for efficient and reliable control of a power system. This paper proposes a particle filtering approach to estimate the electromechanical states of power systems from Phasor Measurement Unit (PMU) data. Without having to go through laborious linearization procedure, the proposed particle filtering techniques can estimate states of a complex power system, which is often non-linear and has non-Gaussian noise. The proposed method is evaluated using a multi-machine system with both large and small disturbances. Sensitivity studies of the dynamic state estimation performance are also presented to show the robustness of the proposed method. The inherent decoupling properties of particle filtering make it highly scalable and the potential to reduce computational time through parallel implementation is very promising.

Meng, Da; Zhou, Ning; Lu, Shuai; Lin, Guang

2012-07-22T23:59:59.000Z

78

Constrained Nonlinear State Estimation Using Ensemble Kalman Filters  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Non-Gaussian state noise probability density function (PDF) for a system with nonnegative constraints on process noise. ... The initial state error covariance matrix has been chosen as The initial state for the process and the state estimator are chosen as and respectively. ... In all simulation runs, the process is simulated using the nonlinear first principles model (eqs 37 and 38) and the true state variables are computed by solving the nonlinear differential equations using the differential equation solver in Matlab 7.7. ...

J. Prakash; Sachin C. Patwardhan; Sirish L. Shah

2010-02-02T23:59:59.000Z

79

Table 1. Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs  

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

Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs" Updated estimates of power plant capital and operating costs" ,"Plant Characteristics",,,"Plant Costs (2012$)" ,"Nominal Capacity (MW)","Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)",,"Overnight Capital Cost ($/kW)","Fixed O&M Cost ($/kW-yr)","Variable O&M Cost ($/MWh)" ,,,,,,,"NEMS Input" " Coal" "Single Unit Advanced PC",650,8800,,3246,37.8,4.47,"N" "Dual Unit Advanced PC",1300,8800,,2934,31.18,4.47,"Y" "Single Unit Advanced PC with CCS",650,12000,,5227,80.53,9.51,"Y" "Dual Unit Advanced PC with CCS",1300,12000,,4724,66.43,9.51,"N" "Single Unit IGCC ",600,8700,,4400,62.25,7.22,"N"

80

Table Search (or Ranking Tables)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Halevy, Alon

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state estimated" 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 1. Aeo Reference Case Projection Results" "Variable","Average Absolute Percent Differences","Percent of Projections Over- Estimated"  

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

Aeo Reference Case Projection Results" Aeo Reference Case Projection Results" "Variable","Average Absolute Percent Differences","Percent of Projections Over- Estimated" "Gross Domestic Product" "Real Gross Domestic Product (Average Cumulative Growth)* (Table 2)",0.9772689079,42.55319149 "Petroleum" "Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil (Constant $) (Table 3a)",35.19047501,18.61702128 "Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil (Nominal $) (Table 3b)",34.68652106,19.68085106 "Total Petroleum Consumption (Table 4)",6.150682783,66.4893617 "Crude Oil Production (Table 5)",5.99969572,59.57446809 "Petroleum Net Imports (Table 6)",13.27260615,67.0212766 "Natural Gas"

82

ARM Site Atmospheric State Best Estimates for AIRS Validation  

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

Site Atmospheric State Best Estimates Site Atmospheric State Best Estimates for AIRS Validation D. C. Tobin, H. E. Revercomb, W. F. Feltz, R. D. Knuteson, and D. D. Turner Space Science and Engineering Center University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin B. M. Lesht Environmental Research Division Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois L. Strow University of Maryland College Park, Maryland C. Barnet Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology Baltimore, Maryland E. Fetzer National Aeronautics Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, California Introduction The atmospheric infrared sounder (AIRS) is a high spectral resolution infrared sounder on the earth observing plan (EOS) Aqua platform. Temperature and water vapor profile retrievals from AIRS are

83

Table 3. Estimation Results for National and Sub-PAD District Regions  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3. Estimation Results for National and Sub-PAD District Regions 3. Estimation Results for National and Sub-PAD District Regions Dependent Variable: D(RETUS) Dependent Variable: D(RETPAD1X) Dependent Variable: D(RETPAD1Y) Dependent Variable: D(RETPAD1Z) Dependent Variable: D(RETCA) Sample: 1/03/2000 to 6/24/2002 Sample: 1/03/2000 to 6/24/2002 Sample: 1/03/2000 to 6/24/2002 Sample: 1/03/2000 to 6/24/2002 Sample: 5/29/2000 to 4/30/2001 11/05/2001 to 6/24/2002 Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient C 0.005 C -0.001 C 0.017 C -0.013 C 0.013 (0.114) (0.101) (0.100) (0.112) (0.215) DSPOTUS(-1) 0.437*** DSPOTPAD1X(-1) 0.210*** DSPOTPAD1Y(-1) 0.249*** DSPOTPAD1Z(-1) 0.346*** DSPOTCA(-1) 0.241*** (0.026) (0.023) (0.023) (0.026) (0.031)

84

Incorporation of Lagrangian measurements in freeway traffic state estimation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

, University of California, Berkeley, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 15 May 2009 state estimation GPS-enabled cell-phones Probe data collection a b s t r a c t Cell-phones equipped lose 4.2 billion hours and waste 2.9 billion of fuel gallons per year because of traffic congestion

85

Optimal PMU Placement Evaluation for Power System Dynamic State Estimation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Optimal PMU Placement Evaluation for Power System Dynamic State Estimation Jinghe Zhang, Student--The synchronized phasor measurement unit (PMU), developed in the 1980s, is considered to be one of the most important devices in the future of power systems. The recent development of PMU technology provides high

Bishop, Gary

86

Phasor Measurement Unit Data in Power System State Estimation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

by supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) devices. The incorporation of PMU measurementsPhasor Measurement Unit Data in Power System State Estimation Intermediate Project Report Power Center since 1996 PSERC #12;Power Systems Engineering Research Center Phasor Measurement Unit Data

87

Multiple phase estimation for arbitrary pure states under white noise  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

In any realistic quantum metrology scenarios, the ultimate precision in the estimation of parameters is limited not only by the so-called Heisenberg scaling, but also the environmental noise encountered by the underlying system. In the context of quantum estimation theory, it is of great significance to carefully evaluate the impact of a specific type of noise on the corresponding quantum Fisher information (QFI) or quantum Fisher information matrix (QFIM). Here we investigate the multiple phase estimation problem for a natural parametrization of arbitrary pure states under white noise. We obtain the explicit expression of the symmetric logarithmic derivative (SLD) and hence the analytical formula of QFIM. Moreover, the attainability of the quantum Cram\\'{e}r-Rao bound (QCRB) is confirmed by the commutability of SLDs and the optimal estimators are elucidated for the experimental purpose. These findings generalize previously known partial results and highlight the role of white noise in quantum metrology.

Yao Yao; Li Ge; Xing Xiao; Xiaoguang Wang; C. P. Sun

2014-09-08T23:59:59.000Z

88

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

89

Multi-area power system state estimation utilizing boundary measurements and phasor measurement units ( PMUs)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

estimation is explained for a simple serial estimator. Then the thesis shows how conventional measurements and newer, more accurate PMU measurements work within the framework of weighted least squares estimation. Next, the multi-area state estimator...

Freeman, Matthew A

2006-10-30T23:59:59.000Z

90

Estimated Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2008: United States  

SciTech Connect

Flow charts depicting carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have been constructed from publicly available data and estimates of state-level energy use patterns. Approximately 5,800 million metric tons of carbon dioxide were emitted throughout the United States for use in power production, residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation applications in 2008. Carbon dioxide is emitted from the use of three major energy resources: natural gas, coal, and petroleum. The flow patterns are represented in a compact 'visual atlas' of 52 state-level (all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and one national) carbon dioxide flow charts representing a comprehensive systems view of national CO{sub 2} emissions. Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) has published flow charts (also referred to as 'Sankey Diagrams') of important national commodities since the early 1970s. The most widely recognized of these charts is the U.S. energy flow chart (http://flowcharts.llnl.gov). LLNL has also published charts depicting carbon (or carbon dioxide potential) flow and water flow at the national level as well as energy, carbon, and water flows at the international, state, municipal, and organizational (i.e. United States Air Force) level. Flow charts are valuable as single-page references that contain quantitative data about resource, commodity, and byproduct flows in a graphical form that also convey structural information about the system that manages those flows. Data on carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector are reported on a national level. Because carbon dioxide emissions are not reported for individual states, the carbon dioxide emissions are estimated using published energy use information. Data on energy use is compiled by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA) in the State Energy Data System (SEDS). SEDS is updated annually and reports data from 2 years prior to the year of the update. SEDS contains data on primary resource consumption, electricity generation, and energy consumption within each economic sector. Flow charts of state-level energy usage and explanations of the calculations and assumptions utilized can be found at: http://flowcharts.llnl.gov. This information is translated into carbon dioxide emissions using ratios of carbon dioxide emissions to energy use calculated from national carbon dioxide emissions and national energy use quantities for each particular sector. These statistics are reported annually in the U.S. EIA's Annual Energy Review. Data for 2008 (US. EIA, 2010) was updated in August of 2010. This is the first presentation of a comprehensive state-level package of flow charts depicting carbon dioxide emissions for the United States.

Smith, C A; Simon, A J; Belles, R D

2011-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

91

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

92

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

93

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

94

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

95

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

96

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

97

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

98

Estimated United States Residential Energy Use in 2005  

SciTech Connect

A flow chart depicting energy flow in the residential sector of the United States economy in 2005 has been constructed from publicly available data and estimates of national energy use patterns. Approximately 11,000 trillion British Thermal Units (trBTUs) of electricity and fuels were used throughout the United States residential sector in lighting, electronics, air conditioning, space heating, water heating, washing appliances, cooking appliances, refrigerators, and other appliances. The residential sector is powered mainly by electricity and natural gas. Other fuels used include petroleum products (fuel oil, liquefied petroleum gas and kerosene), biomass (wood), and on-premises solar, wind, and geothermal energy. The flow patterns represent a comprehensive systems view of energy used within the residential sector.

Smith, C A; Johnson, D M; Simon, A J; Belles, R D

2011-12-12T23:59:59.000Z

99

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

100

On parameter and state estimation for linear differential-algebraic equations  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The current demand for more complex models has initiated a shift away from state-space models towards models described by differential-algebraic equations (DAEs). These models arise as the natural product of object-oriented modeling languages, such as ... Keywords: Differential-algebraic equations, Estimation, Gray-box models, Kalman filtering, Modeling, Parameter estimation, State estimation, Stochastic differential-algebraic equations

Markus Gerdin; Thomas B. Schn; Torkel Glad; Fredrik Gustafsson; Lennart Ljung

2007-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

Strategies for nested and eddy-permitting state estimation Geoffrey Gebbie,1,2,3  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Strategies for nested and eddy-permitting state estimation Geoffrey Gebbie,1,2,3 Patrick Heimbach,2 that is nested inside a global state estimate: (1) estimation of open-boundary conditions consistent no fundamental obstacle exists to constraining the large-scale regional circulation nested within a global

Wunsch, Carl

102

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

103

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)

104

Comparative study of State Estimation of Fuel Cell Hybrid System Using UKF and EKF  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

of the most promising fuel cell technologies is the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) due to its solid state design nonlinear ex- amples are considered to compare the state estimation using UKF and EKF. A Solid Oxide FuelComparative study of State Estimation of Fuel Cell Hybrid System Using UKF and EKF Rambabu Kandepu

Foss, Bjarne A.

105

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

106

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

107

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

108

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

109

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

110

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

111

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

112

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

113

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

114

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

115

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

116

"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

117

Tests of the impact of assimilation of surface data on ocean state estimates  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Tests of the impact of assimilation of surface data on ocean state estimates The coastal ocean. The relative impact of these data on the ocean state estimate has been evaluated. Accurate prediction of the front location is important to fisheries. Prediction and forecasting of surface currents would

Kurapov, Alexander

118

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

119

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.

120

State Energy Profiles and Estimates (SEDS) Report Archives  

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

States - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and...

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

State Energy Production Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

State Energy Data System State Energy Data System Production Estimates Technical Notes For 1960-2011 Estimates Table of Contents Section 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2. Coal ............................................................................................................................... 5 Section 3. Crude Oil ....................................................................................................................... 7 Section 4. Natural Gas (Marketed Production) .............................................................................. 9 Section 5. Renewable Energy and Nuclear Energy ..................................................................... 13

122

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,

123

VEHICLE STATE ESTIMATION USING VISION AND INERTIAL MEASUREMENTS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

, pitch and yaw. A kinematic Kalman filter modeling an inertial navigation system then uses the scene: A novel method for estimating vehicle roll, pitch and yaw using machine vision and inertial sensors versus those from a high-quality GPS/INS system. Keywords: Terrain Aided Localization, Inertial

Brennan, Sean

124

Robust Data-Driven State Estimation for Smart Grid  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

aims to produce a real-time"snapshot"model for the network. Therefore, a grand challenge to the newly, such as intermittent wind power generation or in-consecutive vehicle charging. Mathematically, such estimation problems-convex, current solvers, for instance the ones implementing the Newton's method, for these problems often achieve

Sadeh, Norman M.

125

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

126

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

127

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%

128

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

129

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

130

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

131

Table 2 -Lime use and practices on Corn, major producing states, 2001 CO GA IL IN IA KS KY MI MN MO NE NY NC ND OH PA SD TX WI Area  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Table 2 - Lime use and practices on Corn, major producing states, 2001 CO GA IL IN IA KS KY MI MN.7 Table 2 - Lime use and practices on Corn, major producing states, 2000 CO IL IN IA KS KY MI MN MO NE NY use and practices on Corn, major producing states, 1999 CO IL IN IA KS KY MI MN MO NE NC OH SD TX WI

Kammen, Daniel M.

132

FY 2007 State Table  

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

Fossil Energy Research and Development 11,690 17,627 12,699 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale...

133

The southern ocean meridional overturning circulation as diagnosed from an eddy permitting state estimate  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

A modern general circulation model of the Southern Ocean with one-sixth of a degree resolution is optimized to the observed ocean in a weighted least squares sense. Convergence to the state estimate solution is carried out ...

Mazloff, Matthew R

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

134

Current (2009) State-of-the-Art Hydrogen Production Cost Estimate  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Current (2009) State-of-the-Art Hydrogen Production Cost Estimate Using Water Electrolysis National Cost Estimate Using Water Electrolysis To: Mr. Mark Ruth, NREL, DOE Hydrogen Systems Integration Office. For central production, the hydrogen cost is at the plant gate of an electrolysis facility with a capacity

135

Measurement calibration/tuning & topology processing in power system state estimation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

the implementation of this algorithm. A concise substation model is defined for this purpose. A friendly user interface that incorporates the two-stage algorithm into the conventional state estimator is developed. The performances of the two-stage state... estimation algorithms rely on accurate determination of suspect substations. A comprehensive identification procedure is described in chapter III. In order to evaluate the proposed procedure, a topology error library is created. Several identification...

Zhong, Shan

2005-02-17T23:59:59.000Z

136

Study of the utilization and benefits of phasor measurement units for large scale power system state estimation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

of adding PMU measurements on the state estimation solution accuracy will be studied. Bad data processing in the presence of PMU measurements will also be presented. Finally, a multiarea state estimation method will be developed. This method involves a two...

Yoon, Yeo Jun

2006-04-12T23:59:59.000Z

137

Robustness analysis of State-of-Charge estimation methods for two types of Li-ion batteries  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Robustness analysis of State-of-Charge estimation methods for two types of Li-ion batteries estimation Li-ion battery Robustness analysis a b s t r a c t Battery State of Charge (SOC) estimation. This paper analyzes the robustness of SOC estimation algorithms for two types of Li-ion batteries under

Peng, Huei

138

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

SciTech Connect

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

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

2014-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

139

MODEL-BASED VEHICLE STATE ESTIMATION USING PREVIEWED ROAD GEOMETRY AND NOISY SENSORS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

to the automotive world. Unfortunately for the designers of vehicle driver assist systems, however, most low- cost states from low-cost sensors remains [2]. In the case of autonomous vehicle guidance or in modeling another sen- sor input to estimate vehicle state. This is a particularly low-cost data source, especially

Brennan, Sean

140

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

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

STATE ESTIMATION AND THE MEANING The discipline of the scholar is a consecration to the pursuit of the truth.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

with the things of God. Optimal State Estimation, First Edition. By Dan J. Simon ISBN 0471708585 c 2006 John Wiley, and other subatomic particles. Similarly, on a superficial level it appears that state estimation estimation is based on mathematical truth. · God created the universe and all that is in it. This includes

Simon, Dan

142

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

143

Efficient Quantum-State Estimation by Continuous Weak Measurement and Dynamical Control  

SciTech Connect

We demonstrate a fast, robust, and nondestructive protocol for quantum-state estimation based on continuous weak measurement in the presence of a controlled dynamical evolution. Our experiment uses optically probed atomic spins as a test bed and successfully reconstructs a range of trial states with fidelities of {approx}90%. The procedure holds promise as a practical diagnostic tool for the study of complex quantum dynamics, the testing of quantum hardware, and as a starting point for new types of quantum feedback control.

Smith, Greg A.; Jessen, Poul S. [College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 (United States); Silberfarb, Andrew; Deutsch, Ivan H. [Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 (United States)

2006-11-03T23:59:59.000Z

144

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

145

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

146

Optimal estimation of an observable's expectation value for pure states for general measure of deviation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

We investigate the optimal estimation of quantum expectation value of a physical observable, which minimizes a mean error with respect to general measure of deviation, when a finite number of copies of a pure state are prepared. If pure sates are uniformly distributed, the minimum value of mean error for any measure of deviation is achieved by projective measurement on each copy.

Minoru Horibe; Akihisa Hayashi; Takaaki Hashimoto

2006-10-03T23:59:59.000Z

147

Cooperative State Estimation for Preserving Privacy of User Behaviors in Smart Grid  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Cooperative State Estimation for Preserving Privacy of User Behaviors in Smart Grid Younghun Kim Engineering Department, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA, mbs@ucla.edu Abstract--Smart grid promises a reliable and data amount from advanced smart grid introduce new privacy issues, which have to be resolved

Ngai, Edith Cheuk-Han

148

Power systems: State estimation. (Latest citations from the EI Compendex plus database). Published Search  

SciTech Connect

The bibliography contains citations concerning the monitoring and control of power systems using state estimation techniques. The citations cover analytical techniques, including algorithms, simulations, and problems, such as bad data and nonlinearities. (Contains 250 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.)

Not Available

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

149

Reduced Measurement-space Dynamic State Estimation (ReMeDySE) for Power Systems  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

data are checked and calculated. 2) Observability determination. Various sensor measure- ments. Typically, a state estimator receives telemetered measurements from a Supervisory Control And Data the system dynamics. This changed with the intro- duction of Phasor Measurement Unit (PMU). PMUs primarily

Bishop, Gary

150

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

151

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

152

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

153

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

154

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

155

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

156

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

157

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

158

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

159

Estimation of the local density of states on a quantum computer  

SciTech Connect

We report an efficient quantum algorithm for estimating the local density of states (LDOS) on a quantum computer. The LDOS describes the redistribution of energy levels of a quantum system under the influence of a perturbation. Sometimes known as the 'strength function' from nuclear spectroscopy experiments, the shape of the LDOS is directly related to the survivial probability of unperturbed eigenstates, and has recently been related to the fidelity decay (or 'Loschmidt echo') under imperfect motion reversal. For quantum systems that can be simulated efficiently on a quantum computer, the LDOS estimation algorithm enables an exponential speedup over direct classical computation.

Emerson, Joseph; Cory, David [Department of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (United States); Lloyd, Seth [Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (United States); Poulin, David [Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1 (Canada)

2004-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

160

Estimation of the local density of states on a quantum computer  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

We report an efficient quantum algorithm for estimating the local density of states (LDOS) on a quantum computer. The LDOS describes the redistribution of energy levels of a quantum system under the influence of a perturbation. Sometimes known as the strength function from nuclear spectroscopy experiments, the shape of the LDOS is directly related to the survivial probability of unperturbed eigenstates, and has recently been related to the fidelity decay (or Loschmidt echo) under imperfect motion reversal. For quantum systems that can be simulated efficiently on a quantum computer, the LDOS estimation algorithm enables an exponential speedup over direct classical computation.

Joseph Emerson; Seth Lloyd; David Poulin; David Cory

2004-05-19T23:59:59.000Z

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


161

TABLE OF CONTENTS 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

162

Internal Dose Estimates from  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Appendix F Internal Dose Estimates from NTS Fallout F-1 #12;Radiation Dose to the Population;TABLE OF CONTENTS Page F- Part I. Estimates of Dose...........................................................................................40 Comparison to dose estimates from global fallout

163

Accurately Estimating the State of a Geophysical System with Sparse Observations: Predicting the Weather  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Utilizing the information in observations of a complex system to make accurate predictions through a quantitative model when observations are completed at time $T$, requires an accurate estimate of the full state of the model at time $T$. When the number of measurements $L$ at each observation time within the observation window is larger than a sufficient minimum value $L_s$, the impediments in the estimation procedure are removed. As the number of available observations is typically such that $L \\ll L_s$, additional information from the observations must be presented to the model. We show how, using the time delays of the measurements at each observation time, one can augment the information transferred from the data to the model, removing the impediments to accurate estimation and permitting dependable prediction. We do this in a core geophysical fluid dynamics model, the shallow water equations, at the heart of numerical weather prediction. The method is quite general, however, and can be utilized in the analysis of a broad spectrum of complex systems where measurements are sparse. When the model of the complex system has errors, the method still enables accurate estimation of the state of the model and thus evaluation of the model errors in a manner separated from uncertainties in the data assimilation procedure.

Zhe An; Daniel Rey; Henry D. I. Abarbanel

2014-05-11T23:59:59.000Z

164

"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"

165

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:

166

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.

167

"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

168

"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

169

"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)"

170

"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

171

"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

172

"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

173

"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

174

"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

175

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

176

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.

177

"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

178

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

179

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

180

Application of honey-bee mating optimization on state estimation of a power distribution system including distributed generators  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

We present a new approach based on honey-bee mating optimization to estimate the state variables in distribution networks including distributed generators. The proposed method considers practical models of...

Taher Niknam

2008-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

182

Developing a tool to estimate water withdrawal and consumption in electricity generation in the United States.  

SciTech Connect

Freshwater consumption for electricity generation is projected to increase dramatically in the next couple of decades in the United States. The increased demand is likely to further strain freshwater resources in regions where water has already become scarce. Meanwhile, the automotive industry has stepped up its research, development, and deployment efforts on electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Large-scale, escalated production of EVs and PHEVs nationwide would require increased electricity production, and so meeting the water demand becomes an even greater challenge. The goal of this study is to provide a baseline assessment of freshwater use in electricity generation in the United States and at the state level. Freshwater withdrawal and consumption requirements for power generated from fossil, nonfossil, and renewable sources via various technologies and by use of different cooling systems are examined. A data inventory has been developed that compiles data from government statistics, reports, and literature issued by major research institutes. A spreadsheet-based model has been developed to conduct the estimates by means of a transparent and interactive process. The model further allows us to project future water withdrawal and consumption in electricity production under the forecasted increases in demand. This tool is intended to provide decision makers with the means to make a quick comparison among various fuel, technology, and cooling system options. The model output can be used to address water resource sustainability when considering new projects or expansion of existing plants.

Wu, M.; Peng, J. (Energy Systems); ( NE)

2011-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

183

Lithium-Ion battery State of Charge estimation with a Kalman Filter based on a electrochemical model  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Lithium-Ion battery State of Charge estimation with a Kalman Filter based on a electrochemical state of charge (SOC). In this paper an averaged electrochemical Lithium-ion battery model suitable-Volmer current and the solid concentration at the interface with the electrolyte and (ii) the battery current

Stefanopoulou, Anna

184

A Two-Stage Kalman Filter Approach for Robust and Real-Time Power System State Estimation  

SciTech Connect

As electricity demand continues to grow and renewable energy increases its penetration in the power grid, realtime state estimation becomes essential for system monitoring and control. Recent development in phasor technology makes it possible with high-speed time-synchronized data provided by Phasor Measurement Units (PMU). In this paper we present a two-stage Kalman filter approach to estimate the static state of voltage magnitudes and phase angles, as well as the dynamic state of generator rotor angles and speeds. Kalman filters achieve optimal performance only when the system noise characteristics have known statistical properties (zero-mean, Gaussian, and spectrally white). However in practice the process and measurement noise models are usually difficult to obtain. Thus we have developed the Adaptive Kalman Filter with Inflatable Noise Variances (AKF with InNoVa), an algorithm that can efficiently identify and reduce the impact of incorrect system modeling and/or erroneous measurements. In stage one, we estimate the static state from raw PMU measurements using the AKF with InNoVa; then in stage two, the estimated static state is fed into an extended Kalman filter to estimate the dynamic state. Simulations demonstrate its robustness to sudden changes of system dynamics and erroneous measurements.

Zhang, Jinghe; Welch, Greg; Bishop, Gary; Huang, Zhenyu

2014-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

185

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

186

Evaluation of Various Methods for Estimating Global Solar Radiation in the Southeastern United States  

SciTech Connect

Global solar radiation Rg is an important input for crop models to simulate crop responses. Because the scarcity of long and continuous records of Rg is a serious limitation in many countries, Rg is estimated using models. For crop-model application, empirical Rg models that use commonly measured meteorological variables, such as temperature and precipitation, are generally preferred. Although a large number of models of this kind exist, few have been evaluated for conditions in the United States. This study evaluated the performances of 16 empirical, temperature- and/or precipitation-based Rg models for the southeastern United States. By taking into account spatial distribution and data availability, 30 locations in the region were selected and their daily weather data spanning eight years obtained. One-half of the data was used for calibrating the models, and the other half was used for evaluation. For each model, location-specific parameter values were estimated through regressions. Models were evaluated for each location using the root-mean-square error and the modeling efficiency as goodness-of-fit measures. Among the models that use temperature or precipitation as the input variable, the Mavromatis model showed the best performance. The piecewise linear regression?¢????based Wu et al. model (WP) performed best not only among the models that use both temperature and precipitation but also among the 16 models evaluated, mainly because it has separate relationships for low and high radiation levels. The modeling efficiency of WP was from ~5% to more than 100% greater than those of the other models, depending on models and locations.

Woli, Prem; Paz, Joel O.

2011-12-23T23:59:59.000Z

187

Estimates of Annual Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emitted for Each State in the U.S.A.  

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

State-Level Emission Estimates State-Level Emission Estimates Estimates of Annual Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emitted for Each State in the U.S.A. and the District of Columbia for Each Year from 1960 through 2001 graphics Graphics data Data (ASCII comma-delimited) Investigators T.J. Blasing and Gregg Marland Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6335, U.S.A. Christine Broniak Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-3601 DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00003 Period of Record 1960-2001 Methods Consumption data for coal, petroleum, and natural gas are multiplied by their respective thermal conversion factors, which are in units of heat energy per unit of fuel consumed (i.e., per cubic foot, barrel, or ton), to

188

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

189

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

190

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

191

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

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

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

192

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)

193

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

194

Parameter estimation of coupled water and energy balance models based on stationary constraints of surface states  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

[1] We use a conditional averaging approach to estimate the parameters of a land surface water and energy balance model and then use the estimated parameters to partition net radiation into latent, sensible, and ground ...

Sun, Jian

195

Variability of the Meridional Overturning in the North Atlantic from the 50-Year GECCO State Estimation  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The German partner of the consortium for Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean (GECCO) provided a dynamically consistent estimate of the time-varying ocean circulation over the 50-yr period 19522001. The GECCO synthesis combines ...

Armin Khl; Detlef Stammer

2008-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

196

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

197

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

198

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

199

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)

200

1460 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 32, NO. 7, JULY 2014 Data Framing Attack on State Estimation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

attack, cyber security, smart grid. I. INTRODUCTION AFEATURE of any future smart grid is the promise such that the control center will remove useful measurements that would otherwise be used by the state estimator degree controlling only half of a critical set of measurements that are needed to make a system

Tong, Lang

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

Towards Autonomous-collaborative and Haptic-tele-operated UAVs with Fully-onboard State Estimation and Physical Interaction Capabilities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Towards Autonomous-collaborative and Haptic-tele-operated UAVs with Fully-onboard State Estimation of the very recent and current activities of the Autonomous Robotics and Human-Machine Systems group around the study and design of autonomous robotic systems evolving in an uncertain and dynamical world

202

4162 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 28, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2013 Power System State Estimation Using PMUs With  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

. NOMENCLATURE: PMU Phasor measurement unit. SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisition. GPS Global, Kalman filtering, phase mismatch, phasor measurement unit (PMU), state estimation, synchronization]­[7]. The traditional supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system has a low reporting rate and requires

Nehorai, Arye

203

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

204

Online Simultaneous State Estimation and Parameter Adaptation for Building Predictive Control  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

and E. ekov, Building Modeling as a Crucial Part forthe designed adaptive building modeling framework is testedThe details of building thermal modeling and estimation of

Maasoumy, Mehdi; Moridian, Barzin; Razmara, Meysam; Shahbakhti, Mahdi; Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, Alberto

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

205

A SURVEY OF STATE-LEVEL COST ESTIMATES OF RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARDS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

LEVEL COST ESTIMATES OF RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARDS Galenthe incremental cost of renewables portfolio standards (RPS)Washington DC have adopted renewables portfolio standards (

Barbose, Galen

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

206

Estimated Value of Service Reliability for Electric Utility Customers in the United States  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Ordinary Least Squares SAIDI System Average Interruptionapplied to indicators like SAIDI and SAIFI for purposes ofe.g. , SAIFI and SAIDI); estimate partial interruption cost;

Sullivan, M.J.

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

207

Estimated Value of Service Reliability for Electric Utility Customers in the United States  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Average Interruption Duration Index SAIFI System Averageindicators like SAIDI and SAIFI for purposes of calculatingreliability performance (e.g. , SAIFI and SAIDI); estimate

Sullivan, M.J.

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

208

State-level evaluations of the Weatherization Assistance Program in 1990-1996: a metaevaluation that estimates national savings  

SciTech Connect

The DOE Weatherization Assistance Program is one of the largest energy conservation programs in the nation. To obtain an updated estimate of national Program savings, an approach of metaevaluation was selected, which involved locating, assembling, and summarizing the results of all state-level evaluations of the Program that have become available since 1990. All of the savings estimates that are presented in this report are for dwellings that heat primarily with natural gas.This review of the state-level evaluations conducted since 1990 concluded that Program performance has improved significantly in the last seven years. The finding that savings are increasing are supported by a literature review, within-state comparisons of savings over time, and regression modeling results.

Berry, L.

1997-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

209

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

210

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 56 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1996 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD...

211

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 262 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1996 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type,...

212

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 262 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1997 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type,...

213

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

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

See footnotes at end of table. 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State 386 Energy Information...

214

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

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

Marketing Annual 1999 Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

215

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

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

Marketing Annual 1995 Table 49. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Aviation Fuels, Propane, and Residual Fuel Oil by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

216

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

217

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per...

218

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

219

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

220

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

- - - - W W - - - - - - See footnotes at end of table. 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 86 Energy Information...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "table state estimated" 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 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

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

222

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

223

Table 33. Oxygenated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 33. Oxygenated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

224

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

- - - - W W - - - - - - See footnotes at end of table. 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 292 Energy Information...

225

Table 33. Oxygenated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

- - - - - - - - - - - - See footnotes at end of table. 33. Oxygenated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 116 Energy Information...

226

Table 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

227

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

228

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Petroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) - Continued...

229

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) - Continued...

230

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 44. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Formulation, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per...

231

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

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

232

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

233

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

234

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Petroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) - Continued...

235

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

236

Table 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

- - - - 64.7 64.7 - - - - - - See footnotes at end of table. 32. Conventional Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 86 Energy Information...

237

Economic Burden of Cancer in the United States: Estimates, Projections, and Future Research  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...and then combined with human capital or WTP estimates of the value...the employment-based human capital method. As expected, the...productivity valued with the human capital approach is estimated to increase...surveys [e.g., Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)] and...

K. Robin Yabroff; Jennifer Lund; Deanna Kepka; and Angela Mariotto

2011-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

238

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

239

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.

240

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

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

Table HIST002R_2. Death rates for 113 selected causes by 5-year age groups, race and sex: United States, 1979-98  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

,241.7 1988 957.9 441.1 719.7 1,193.5 1,903.9 2,887.8 4,516.8 6,827.0 10,651.9 19,020.8 1987 952.7 447.2 745 in this table: * Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision - Quantity zero 0.0 Quantity greater

Hunter, David

242

Current (2009) State-of-the-Art Hydrogen Production Cost Estimate Using Water Electrolysis: Independent Review  

SciTech Connect

This independent review examines DOE cost targets for state-of-the art hydrogen production using water electrolysis.

Not Available

2009-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

243

Embedded avionics with Kalman state estimation for a novel micro-scale unmanned aerial vehicle  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

An inertial navigation system leveraging Kalman estimation techniques and quaternion dynamics is developed for deployment to a micro-scale unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The capabilities, limitations, and requirements of ...

Tzanetos, Theodore

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

244

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.

245

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

246

Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract As forestlands provide a variety of environmental services, the management of forest resources is a matter of public concern. In the present case of state-owned commercial forests in Finland, legislation requires specific management practices to enhance recreational benefits free of charge to the public. This choice experiment considers Finnish people's valuation of the recreation-oriented management of state-owned commercial forests to evaluate whether the recreational benefits produced justify the related loss of profits from timber sales. We focus on three management attributes: scenic buffer zones along lakes and rivers, habitats for game birds, and the quality of scenery as reflected by the frequency of clear-cut areas along hiking trails. Marginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) effects for the attributes are estimated with random parameters logit models specified in the WTP space, while preference-space models are used to estimate in physical terms the attribute levels that maximize the benefits to the public. Despite regional differences in preferences, people in all parts of Finland valued the current recreation-oriented management of state-owned commercial forests considerably. Nationwide, the aggregate benefits of recreation-enhancing management clearly exceeded the estimated opportunity costs. The most preferred levels of management attributes were slightly above the current levels, suggesting an increase in the provision of recreational services when not considering the associated costs.

Artti Juutinen; Anna-Kaisa Kosenius; Ville Ovaskainen

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

247

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.

248

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.

249

The Influence of Maximum Magnitude on Seismic-Hazard Estimates in the Central and Eastern United States  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...plant sites are shown in Tables-1 and 2. The North Anna site (Table-1) is located in central Virginia...relatively quiet region. Data are taken from the North Anna (Dominion Nuclear North Anna, 2006) and South Texas Project (South Texas...

Charles S. Mueller

250

Analytical Estimation of CO2 Storage Capacity in Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs Based on Thermodynamic State Functions  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

dimensions. Vertical discretization of grid size allows to improve aquifer influx modeling......................................... 55 Table 4.2? Reservoir model properties. ................................................................ 58 Table 4... fuel dependency will continue in the near future, increasing the need to develop economic and technologically feasible approaches to reduce and capture and dispose CO2 emissions. Geological storage of CO2 in aquifers and depleted oil and gas...

Valbuena Olivares, Ernesto

2012-02-14T23:59:59.000Z

251

Recoverable Natural Gas Resource of the United States: Summary of Recent Estimates  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...Summary of Recent Estimates John B. Curtis 1 Scott L. Montgomery...montgomery@prodigy.net John B. Curtis is associate professor...Technology Institute (Holtberg and Cochener, 2001), the National Petroleum...the Potential Gas Committee: John D. Haun, David F. Morehouse...

John B. Curtis; Scott L. Montgomery

252

A trade-off analysis between penetration rate and sampling frequency of mobile sensors in traffic state estimation  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract The rapid-growth of smartphones with embedded navigation systems such as GPS modules provides new ways of monitoring traffic. These devices can register and send a great amount of traffic related data, which can be used for traffic state estimation. In such a case, the amount of data collected depends on two variables: the penetration rate of devices in traffic flow (P) and their data sampling frequency (z). Referring to data composition as the way certain number of observations is collected, in terms of P and z, we need to understand the relation between the amount and composition of data collected, and the accuracy achieved in traffic state estimation. This was accomplished through an in-depth analysis of two datasets of vehicle trajectories on freeways. The first dataset consists of trajectories over a real freeway, while the second dataset is obtained through microsimulation. Hypothetical scenarios of data sent by equipped vehicles were created, based on the composition of data collected. Different values of P and z were used, and each unique combination defined a specific scenario. Traffic states were estimated through two simple methods, and a more advanced one that incorporates traffic flow theory. A measure to quantify data to be collected was proposed, based on travel time, number of vehicles, penetration rate and sampling frequency. The error was below 6% for every scenario in each dataset. Also, increasing data reduced variability in data count estimation. The performance of the different estimation methods varied through each dataset and scenario. Since the same number of observations can be gathered with different combinations of P and z, the effect of data composition was analyzed (a trade-off between penetration rate and sampling frequency). Different situations were found. In some, an increase in penetration rate is more effective to reduce estimation error than an increase in sampling frequency, considering an equal increase in observations. In other areas, the opposite relationship was found. Between these areas, an indifference curve was found. In fact, this curve is the solution to the optimization problem of minimizing the error given any fixed number of observations. As a general result, increasing sampling frequency (penetration rate) is more beneficial when the current sampling frequency (penetration rate) is low, independent of the penetration rate (sampling frequency).

Christopher Bucknell; Juan C. Herrera

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

253

E-Print Network 3.0 - aided state estimation Sample Search Results  

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

Data Set 2007-08 H1 2007-2008 Summary: for undergraduate degree- seeking nonresident aliens: State aid form Report the average per-borrower cumulative... institutional aid. Check...

254

Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract Wind energy has emerged as a promising alternative to fossil fuels, yet the impacts of wind facilities on wildlife remain unclear. Prior studies estimate between 10,000 and 573,000 fatal bird collisions with U.S. wind turbines annually; however, these studies do not differentiate between turbines with a monopole tower and those with a lattice tower, the former of which now comprise the vast majority of all U.S. wind turbines and the latter of which are largely being de-commissioned. We systematically derived an estimate of bird mortality for U.S. monopole turbines by applying inclusion criteria to compiled studies, identifying correlates of mortality, and utilizing a predictive model to estimate mortality along with uncertainty. Despite measures taken to increase analytical rigor, the studies we used may provide a non-random representation of all data; requiring industry reports to be made publicly available would improve understanding of wind energy impacts. Nonetheless, we estimate that between 140,000 and 328,000 (mean=234,000) birds are killed annually by collisions with monopole turbines in the contiguous U.S. We found support for an increase in mortality with increasing turbine hub height and support for differing mortality rates among regions, with per turbine mortality lowest in the Great Plains. Evaluation of risks to birds is warranted prior to continuing a widespread shift to taller wind turbines. Regional patterns of collision risk, while not obviating the need for species-specific and local-scale assessments, may inform broad-scale decisions about wind facility siting.

Scott R. Loss; Tom Will; Peter P. Marra

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

255

Supplemental Figures and Tables for Groundfish EFH Review Phase 1 Report "Federal and State Marine Protected Areas Type of Fishing Restriction"  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

"Federal and State Marine Protected Areas ­ Type of Fishing Restriction" Author and state MPAs depicted in map figures, categorized by level of fishing restriction Fishing Restriction BEFORE AFTER Commercial and Recreational Fishing Prohibited

Goldfinger, Chris

256

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

257

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

258

Estimated Benefits of IBWC Rio Grande Flood-Control Projects in the United States  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

reservoirs, dams, hydroelectric energy-generation facilities, floodways, and levees downstream of Caballo Reservoir in New Mexico. The international boundary between the United States (U.S.) and Mexico is over 1 is characterized by fifteen pairs of sister cities sustained by agriculture, import-export trade, service

259

Convolution Particle Filter for Parameter Estimation in General State-Space Models  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

study. Index Terms Bayes procedures, Hidden Markov models, Marine vehicle detection and tracking, Monte Campillo and Vivien Rossi Abstract The state-space modeling of partially observed dynamical systems to the parameter components or to the deterministic component of the dynamical system. However, this approach

Rossi, Vivien

260

Discrete state model and accurate estimation of loop entropy of RNA secondary structures  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA 2 National Laboratory of Solid State Microstructure, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA 4 Department of Statistics, Rutgers enthalpic. Our method can be applied to develop improved energy parameters important for studying RNA

Dai, Yang

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

Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from United States Forest Service  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

associated with harvested wood products (HWP) to meet greenhouse gas monitoring commitments and climate Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Nathaniel Anderson is a Research Forester with the United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Keith Stockmann is an Economist

262

Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from United States Forest Service  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

associated with harvested wood products (HWP) to meet greenhouse gas monitoring commitments and climate, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Jesse Young is Forestry Research Technician with the United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Kenneth Skog is a Project

263

Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from United States Forest  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

products (HWP) to meet greenhouse gas monitoring commitments and climate change adaptation and mitigation Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Nathaniel Anderson is a Research Forester with the United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Keith Stockmann is an Economist

264

Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from United States Forest Service  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

products (HWP) to meet greenhouse gas monitoring commitments and climate change adaptation and mitigation, Missoula, MT. and cooperator with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Nathaniel Anderson is a Research Forester with the United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT

265

Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from United States Forest Service  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

associated with harvested wood products (HWP) to meet greenhouse gas monitoring commitments and climate of Montana, Missoula, MT. and cooperator with the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Nathaniel Anderson is a Research Forester with the United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station

266

Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from United States Forest Service  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

associated with harvested wood products (HWP) to meet greenhouse gas monitoring commitments and climate Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Jesse Young is Forestry Research Technician with the United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Kenneth Skog

267

Estimates of carbon stored in harvested wood products from United States Forest Service  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

associated with harvested wood products (HWP) to meet greenhouse gas monitoring commitments and climate Research Station, Missoula, MT. Jesse Young is Forestry Research Technician with the United States Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Kenneth Skog is a Project Leader

268

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

269

Quasiholes of 13 and 73 quantum Hall states: Size estimates via exact diagonalization and density-matrix renormalization group  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

We determine the size of the elementary quasihole in ?=1/3 and ?=7/3 quantum Hall states via exact-diagonalization and density-matrix renormalization group calculations on the sphere and cylinder, using a variety of short- and long-range pinning potentials. The size of the quasihole at filling factor ?=1/3 is estimated to be ?4?B, and that of ?=7/3 is ?7?B, where ?B is the magnetic length. In contrast, the size of the Laughlin quasihole, expected to capture the basic physics in these two states, is around ?2.5?B. Our work supports the earlier findings that the quasihole in the first excited Landau level is significantly larger than in the lowest Landau level.

Sonika Johri; Z. Papi?; R. N. Bhatt; P. Schmitteckert

2014-03-24T23:59:59.000Z

270

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

271

The Effect of Improved Fuel Economy on Vehicle Miles Traveled: Estimating the Rebound Effect Using U.S. State Data, 1966-2001  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1979, State Energy Fuel Prices by Major Economic Sector fromon variations in the fuel price P F , 1 in which case it isempirical estimates of the fuel-price elasticities of fuel

Small, Kenneth A; Van Dender, Kurt

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

272

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.

273

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

274

Table of Contents  

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

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

275

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

276

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

277

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

278

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

279

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

280

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"

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

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

282

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

283

A critical review of methods used in the estimation of natural gas reserves: Natural gas reserves in the state of Texas. Some educational prerequisites in the field of petroleum economics and evaluation.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

-Associated Gas Reserves Volumetr ic Method Discussion of the Factors in tne Volumetri. Formula The Decline Curve Method 7 7 12 Ie Methods of Estimating Associated Gas Reserves Methods of Estimatmg Dissolved Gas Reserves Water Drive Constant Voluxne... Bibliography 58 TABLE of ILLUSTRATIONS ~Pa e A CRITICAI REVIEW OF METHODS USED IN THE ESTIMATION OF NATURAL GAS RESERVES Curves Curve No Curves Showing Change in the Compressi- bility Factor with Depth and Composition of the Wet Gas. Z4-A Curve No...

Crichton, John Alston

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

284

Variable White Dwarf Data Tables  

SciTech Connect

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

Bradley, P. A.

1997-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

285

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

286

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

287

State energy price and expenditure report 1989  

SciTech Connect

The State Energy Price and Expenditure Report (SEPER) presents energy price and expenditure estimates for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the United States. The estimates are provided by energy source (e.g., petroleum, natural gas, coal, and electricity) and by major consuming or economic sector. This report is an update of the State Energy Price and Expenditure Report 1988 published in September 1990. Changes from the last report are summarized in a section of the documentation. Energy price and expenditure estimates are published for the years 1970, 1975, 1980, and 1985 through 1989. Documentation follows the tables and describes how the price estimates are developed, including sources of data, methods of estimation, and conversion factors applied. Consumption estimates used to calculate expenditures, and the documentation for those estimates, are from the State Energy Data Report, Consumption Estimates, 1960--1989 (SEDR), published in May 1991. Expenditures are calculated by multiplying the price estimates by the consumption estimates, adjusted to remove process fuel and intermediate product consumption. All expenditures are consumer expenditures, that is, they represent estimates of money directly spent by consumers to purchase energy, generally including taxes. 11 figs., 43 tabs.

Not Available

1991-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

288

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.

289

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

290

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

291

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

292

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

293

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

294

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 -- --

295

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

296

Table of Contents Page i Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

297

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2,026.7 W W 234.5 161.7 - 396.3 See footnotes at end of table. 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 262 Energy Information...

298

Table 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

70.8 92.7 90.7 81.5 72.8 - 78.0 See footnotes at end of table. 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 146 Energy Information...

299

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2,222.4 W W 206.4 134.3 - 340.7 See footnotes at end of table. 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 262 Energy Information...

300

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

466.1 466.1 See footnotes at end of table. 48. Prime Supplier Sales Volumes of Motor Gasoline by Grade, Formulation, PAD District, and State 356 Energy Information Administration...

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

Table 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

71.7 92.3 89.9 82.6 72.7 - 78.2 See footnotes at end of table. 34. Reformulated Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State 146 Energy Information...

302

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (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 Administration...

303

Cost Recovery Charge (CRC) Calculation Tables  

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

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

304

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

305

Distribution System State Estimation  

Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

these include reactive power management, outage management, loss reduction, demand response, adaptable over-current protection, condition-based maintenance, distributed...

306

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

307

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

308

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

309

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

310

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

311

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

312

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

313

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

314

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

315

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

316

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

317

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

318

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

319

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

320

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

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


321

Microsoft Word - table_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

322

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

323

Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 295 Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil Volumes by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

324

Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 295 Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil Volumes by PAD District and State (Thousand Gallons per Day) -...

325

Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

56 Energy Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

326

Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

56 Energy Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1998 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District, and State (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

327

Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

328

Table A1. Refiner/Reseller Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, PAD...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 1999 401 Table A1. RefinerReseller Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, PAD District and State, 1984-Present (Cents per Gallon Excluding...

329

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%

330

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

331

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 -- -- --

332

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

333

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

334

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

335

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

336

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

337

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.

338

PSM: Lithium-Ion Battery State of Charge (SOC) and Critical Surface Charge (CSC) Estimation using an Electrochemical Model-driven  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

PSM: Lithium-Ion Battery State of Charge (SOC) and Critical Surface Charge (CSC) Estimation using Abstract-- This paper presents a numerical calculation of the evolution of the spatially-resolved solid concentration in the two electrodes of a lithium-ion cell. The microscopic solid con- centration is driven

Stefanopoulou, Anna

339

Robust Data-Driven State Estimation for Smart Grid Yang Weng, Student Member, IEEE, Rohit Negi, Member, IEEE, Christos Faloutsos, Member, IEEE, and  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

, a grand challenge to the newly built smart grid is how to "optimally" estimate the state with increasing uncertainties, such as intermittent wind power generation or inconsecutive vehicle charging. Mathematically. As the problems are nonconvex, current solvers, for instance the ones implementing Newton's method

Gordon, Geoffrey J.

340

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

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

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

342

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

343

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

344

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

345

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

346

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

347

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

348

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

349

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

350

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

351

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

352

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

353

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."

354

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

355

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:

356

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

357

"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

358

"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"

359

"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" ,

360

Estimating the Capacity Value of Concentrating Solar Power Plants: A Case Study of the Southwestern United States  

SciTech Connect

We estimate the capacity value of concentrating solar power (CSP) plants without thermal energy storage in the southwestern U.S. Our results show that CSP plants have capacity values that are between 45% and 95% of maximum capacity, depending on their location and configuration. We also examine the sensitivity of the capacity value of CSP to a number of factors and show that capacity factor-based methods can provide reasonable approximations of reliability-based estimates.

Madaeni, S. H.; Sioshansi, R.; Denholm, P.

2012-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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%

363

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)

364

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

365

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

366

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

367

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.

368

2003 CBECS Detailed Tables: Summary  

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

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

369

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

370

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

371

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

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

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

372

FY 2014 Budget Request Summary Table | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

373

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

374

Sample size requirements for estimating effective dose from computed tomography using solid-state metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor dosimetry  

SciTech Connect

Purpose: Effective dose (ED) is a widely used metric for comparing ionizing radiation burden between different imaging modalities, scanners, and scan protocols. In computed tomography (CT), ED can be estimated by performing scans on an anthropomorphic phantom in which metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) solid-state dosimeters have been placed to enable organ dose measurements. Here a statistical framework is established to determine the sample size (number of scans) needed for estimating ED to a desired precision and confidence, for a particular scanner and scan protocol, subject to practical limitations. Methods: The statistical scheme involves solving equations which minimize the sample size required for estimating ED to desired precision and confidence. It is subject to a constrained variation of the estimated ED and solved using the Lagrange multiplier method. The scheme incorporates measurement variation introduced both by MOSFET calibration, and by variation in MOSFET readings between repeated CT scans. Sample size requirements are illustrated on cardiac, chest, and abdomenpelvis CT scans performed on a 320-row scanner and chest CT performed on a 16-row scanner. Results: Sample sizes for estimating ED vary considerably between scanners and protocols. Sample size increases as the required precision or confidence is higher and also as the anticipated ED is lower. For example, for a helical chest protocol, for 95% confidence and 5% precision for the ED, 30 measurements are required on the 320-row scanner and 11 on the 16-row scanner when the anticipated ED is 4 mSv; these sample sizes are 5 and 2, respectively, when the anticipated ED is 10 mSv. Conclusions: Applying the suggested scheme, it was found that even at modest sample sizes, it is feasible to estimate ED with high precision and a high degree of confidence. As CT technology develops enabling ED to be lowered, more MOSFET measurements are needed to estimate ED with the same precision and confidence.

Trattner, Sigal [Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York 10032 (United States)] [Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York 10032 (United States); Cheng, Bin [Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York 10032 (United States)] [Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York 10032 (United States); Pieniazek, Radoslaw L. [Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York 10032 (United States)] [Center for Radiological Research, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York 10032 (United States); Hoffmann, Udo [Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (United States)] [Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (United States); Douglas, Pamela S. [Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27715 (United States)] [Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27715 (United States); Einstein, Andrew J., E-mail: andrew.einstein@columbia.edu [Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York and Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York (United States)

2014-04-15T23:59:59.000Z

375

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

376

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

377

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

378

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

379

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

380

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

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

382

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

383

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

384

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

385

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

386

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

387

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

388

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

389

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

390

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

391

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

392

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

393

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

394

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

395

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

396

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

397

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

398

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

399

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

400

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

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

402

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

403

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

404

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

405

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

406

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

407

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

408

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

409

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

410

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

411

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

412

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

413

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

414

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

415

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

416

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 --

417

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

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, 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

419

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

420

Code Tables | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

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

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

Natural radioactivity in groundwater and estimates of committed effective dose due to water ingestion in the state of Chihuahua (Mexico)  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......effective dose due to water ingestion in the state of Chihuahua (Mexico) L. Villalba 1 M. E. Montero-Cabrera...C. Miguel de Cervantes 120, Complejo Industrial Chihuahua, Chihuahua, C.P. 31109, Chih., Mexico 2 Departamento......

L. Villalba; M. E. Montero-Cabrera; G. Manjn-Collado; L. Colmenero-Sujo; M. Rentera-Villalobos; A. Cano-Jimnez; A. Rodrguez-Pineda; I. Dvila-Rangel; L. Quirino-Torres; E. F. Herrera-Peraza

2006-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

422

Savings estimates for the United States Environmental Protection Agency?s ENERGY STAR voluntary product labeling program  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1993 Residential Energy Consumption survey (US DOE 1995) 3 .using the energy consumption test data collected by US EPAUS DOE, United States Department of Energy. 2004. Residential Energy Consumption

Sanchez, Marla Christine

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

423

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

424

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

425

Systematic and statistical errors in a Bayesian approach to the estimation of the neutron-star equation of state using advanced gravitational wave detectors  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Advanced ground-based gravitational-wave detectors are capable of measuring tidal influences in binary neutron-star systems. In this work, we report on the statistical uncertainties in measuring tidal deformability with a full Bayesian parameter estimation implementation. We show how simultaneous measurements of chirp mass and tidal deformability can be used to constrain the neutron-star equation of state. We also study the effects of waveform modeling bias and individual instances of detector noise on these measurements. We notably find that systematic error between post-Newtonian waveform families can significantly bias the estimation of tidal parameters, thus motivating the continued development of waveform models that are more reliable at high frequencies.

Leslie Wade; Jolien D.?E. Creighton; Evan Ochsner; Benjamin D. Lackey; Benjamin F. Farr; Tyson B. Littenberg; Vivien Raymond

2014-05-23T23:59:59.000Z

426

Systematic and statistical errors in a bayesian approach to the estimation of the neutron-star equation of state using advanced gravitational wave detectors  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Advanced ground-based gravitational-wave detectors are capable of measuring tidal influences in binary neutron-star systems. In this work, we report on the statistical uncertainties in measuring tidal deformability with a full Bayesian parameter estimation implementation. We show how simultaneous measurements of chirp mass and tidal deformability can be used to constrain the neutron-star equation of state. We also study the effects of waveform modeling bias and individual instances of detector noise on these measurements. We notably find that systematic error between post-Newtonian waveform families can significantly bias the estimation of tidal parameters, thus motivating the continued development of waveform models that are more reliable at high frequencies.

Wade, Leslie; Ochsner, Evan; Lackey, Benjamin D; Farr, Benjamin F; Littenberg, Tyson B; Raymond, Vivien

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

427

Systematic and statistical errors in a bayesian approach to the estimation of the neutron-star equation of state using advanced gravitational wave detectors  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Advanced ground-based gravitational-wave detectors are capable of measuring tidal influences in binary neutron-star systems. In this work, we report on the statistical uncertainties in measuring tidal deformability with a full Bayesian parameter estimation implementation. We show how simultaneous measurements of chirp mass and tidal deformability can be used to constrain the neutron-star equation of state. We also study the effects of waveform modeling bias and individual instances of detector noise on these measurements. We notably find that systematic error between post-Newtonian waveform families can significantly bias the estimation of tidal parameters, thus motivating the continued development of waveform models that are more reliable at high frequencies.

Leslie Wade; Jolien D. E. Creighton; Evan Ochsner; Benjamin D. Lackey; Benjamin F. Farr; Tyson B. Littenberg; Vivien Raymond

2014-02-20T23:59:59.000Z

428

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

429

Table of Contents  

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

SECTION III: NUCLEAR THEORY Low-Energy Behavior of the Astrophysical S Factor in Radiative Captures to Loosely Bound Final States A. M. Mukhamedzhanov, F. Nunes ANCs and Radiation...

430

Estimation of Net Ecosystem Carbon Exchange for the Conterminous UnitedStates by Combining MODIS and AmeriFlux Data  

SciTech Connect

Eddy covariance flux towers provide continuous measurements of net ecosystem carbon exchange (NEE) for a wide range of climate and biome types. However, these measurements only represent the carbon fluxes at the scale of the tower footprint. To quantify the net exchange of carbon dioxide between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere for regions or continents, flux tower measurements need to be extrapolated to these large areas. Here we used remotely-sensed data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) instrument on board NASA's Terra satellite to scale up AmeriFlux NEE measurements to the continental scale. We first combined MODIS and AmeriFlux data for representative U.S. ecosystems to develop a predictive NEE model using a regression tree approach. The predictive model was trained and validated using NEE data over the periods 2000-2004 and 2005-2006, respectively. We found that the model predicted NEE reasonably well at the site level. We then applied the model to the continental scale and estimated NEE for each 1 km x 1 km cell across the conterminous U.S. for each 8-day period in 2005 using spatially-explicit MODIS data. The model generally captured the expected spatial and seasonal patterns of NEE. Our study demonstrated that our empirical approach is effective for scaling up eddy flux NEE measurements to the continental scale and producing wall-to-wall NEE estimates across multiple biomes. Our estimates may provide an independent dataset from simulations with biogeochemical models and inverse modeling approaches for examining the spatiotemporal patterns of NEE and constraining terrestrial carbon budgets for large areas.

Xiao, Jingfeng; Zhuang, Qianlai; Baldocchi, Dennis D.; Law, Beverly E.; Richardson, Andrew D.; Chen, Jiquan; Oren, Ram; Starr, Gregory; Noormets, Asko; Ma, Siyan; Verma, Shashi B.; Wharton, Sonia; Wofsy, Steven C.; Bolstad, Paul V.; Burns, Sean P.; Cook, David R.; Curtis, Peter S.; Drake, Bert G.; Falk, Matthias; Fischer, Marc L.; Foster, David R.; Gu, Lianhong; Hadley, Julian L.; Hollinger, David Y.; Katul, Gabriel G.; Litvak, Marcy; Martin, Timothy A.; Matamala, Roser; McNulty, Steve; Meyers, Tilden P.; Monson, Russell K.; Munger, J. William; Oechel, Walter C.; U, Kyaw Tha Paw; Schmid, Hans Peter; Scott, Russell L.; Sun, Ge; Suyker, Andrew E.; Torn, Margaret S.

2009-03-06T23:59:59.000Z

431

Estimation of net ecosystem carbon exchange for the conterminous United States by combining MODIS and AmeriFlux data  

SciTech Connect

Eddy covariance flux towers provide continuous measurements of net ecosystem carbon exchange (NEE) for a wide range of climate and biome types. However, these measurements only represent the carbon fluxes at the scale of the tower footprint. To quantify the net exchange of carbon dioxide between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere for regions or continents, flux tower measurements need to be extrapolated to these large areas. Here we used remotely sensed data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) instrument on board the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Terra satellite to scale up AmeriFlux NEE measurements to the continental scale. We first combined MODIS and AmeriFlux data for representative U.S. ecosystems to develop a predictive NEE model using a modified regression tree approach. The predictive model was trained and validated using eddy flux NEE data over the periods 2000-2004 and 2005-2006, respectively. We found that the model predicted NEE well (r = 0.73, p < 0.001). We then applied the model to the continental scale and estimated NEE for each 1 km x 1 km cell across the conterminous U.S. for each 8-day interval in 2005 using spatially explicit MODIS data. The model generally captured the expected spatial and seasonal patterns of NEE as determined from measurements and the literature. Our study demonstrated that our empirical approach is effective for scaling up eddy flux NEE measurements to the continental scale and producing wall-to-wall NEE estimates across multiple biomes. Our estimates may provide an independent dataset from simulations with biogeochemical models and inverse modeling approaches for examining the spatiotemporal patterns of NEE and constraining terrestrial carbon budgets over large areas.

Xiao, Jingfeng; Zhuang, Qianlai; Baldocchi, Dennis D.; Bolstad, Paul V.; Burns, Sean P.; Chen, Jiquan; Cook, David R.; Curtis, Peter S.; Drake, Bert G.; Foster, David R.; Gu, Lianhong; Hadley, Julian L.; Hollinger, David Y.; Katul, Gabriel G.; Law, Beverly E.; Litvak, Marcy; Ma, Siyan; Martin, Timothy A.; Matamala, Roser; McNulty, Steve; Meyers, Tilden P.; Monson, Russell K.; Munger, J. William; Noormets, Asko; Oechel, Walter C.; Oren, Ram; Richardson, Andrew D.; Schmid, Hans Peter; Scott, Russell L.; Starr, Gregory; Sun, Ge; Suyker, Andrew E.; Torn, Margaret S.; Paw, Kyaw; Verma, Shashi B.; Wharton, Sonia; Wofsy, Steven C.

2008-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

432

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

433

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

434

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

435

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

436

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

437

Analytic flux formulas and tables of shielding functions  

SciTech Connect

Hand calculations of radiation flux and dose rates are often useful in evaluating radiation shielding and in determining the scope of a problem. The flux formulas appropriate to such calculations are almost always based on the point kernel and allow for at most the consideration of laminar slab shields. These formulas often require access to tables of values of integral functions for effective use. Flux formulas and function tables appropriate to calculations involving homogeneous source regions with the shapes of lines, disks, slabs, truncated cones, cylinders, and spheres are presented. Slab shields may be included in most of these calculations, and the effect of a cylindrical shield surrounding a cylindrical source may be estimated. Detector points may be located axially, laterally, or interior to a cylindrical source. Line sources may be tilted with respect to a slab shield. All function tables are given for a wide range of arguments.

Wallace, O.J.

1981-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

438

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

439

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.

440

Origin State Destination State  

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

6. Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, state to state, STB data 6. Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, state to state, STB data Origin State Destination State 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2001-2009 2008-2009 Alabama Alabama W W W W W W W W W W W Alabama Georgia W W W W W W W W W W W Alabama Illinois - - - - - W W W W - W Colorado Alabama - W W W W W W W W - W Colorado Arizona W W W W W W W W W W W Colorado Arkansas - - - - W W W W - - -

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

Origin State Destination State  

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

5. Estimated barge transportation rates for coal, state to state, EIA data 5. Estimated barge transportation rates for coal, state to state, EIA data Origin State Destination State 2008 2009 2010 2008-2010 2009-2010 Alabama Alabama $4.31 $4.36 $5.01 7.9 15.0 Alabama Ohio W - - - - Colorado Alabama W - - - - Colorado Florida $11.08 $12.65 $13.27 9.4 4.9 Colorado Indiana $6.29 W - - - Colorado Iowa W - - - - Colorado Kentucky W - - - - Colorado Mississippi - - W - - Colorado Ohio - W - - - Colorado Tennessee W - - - - Illinois Alabama W $13.15 $14.28 W 8.6

442

Origin State Destination State  

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

8. Estimated truck transportation rates for coal, state to state, EIA data 8. Estimated truck transportation rates for coal, state to state, EIA data Origin State Destination State 2008 2009 2010 2008-2010 2009-2010 Alabama Alabama W W W W W Alabama Georgia - - W - - Alabama Indiana W W - - - Colorado Colorado W W W W W Colorado Michigan - - W - - Illinois Florida W - - - - Illinois Illinois $7.51 $4.74 $3.37 -33.0 -28.8 Illinois Indiana W W - - - Illinois Minnesota W W - - - Illinois Missouri $21.73 $20.23 $13.30 -21.8 -34.3 Indiana Alabama - W - - -

443

Origin State Destination State  

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

5. Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, state to state, STB data 5. Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, state to state, STB data Origin State Destination State 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2001-2009 2008-2009 Alabama Alabama W W W W W W W W W W W Alabama Georgia W W W W W W W W W W W Alabama Illinois - - - - - W W W W - W Colorado Alabama - W W W W W W W W - W Colorado Arizona W W W W W W W W W W W Colorado Arkansas - - - - W W W W - - -

444

Origin State Destination State  

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

4. Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, state to state, STB data 4. Estimated rail transportation rates for coal, state to state, STB data Origin State Destination State 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2001-2009 2008-2009 Alabama Alabama W W W W W W W W W W W Alabama Georgia W W W W W W W W W W W Alabama Illinois - - - - - W W W W - W Colorado Alabama - W W W W W W W W - W Colorado Arizona W W W W W W W W W W W Colorado Arkansas - - - - W W W W - - -

445

Origin State Destination State  

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

6. Estimated barge transportation rates for coal, state to state, EIA data 6. Estimated barge transportation rates for coal, state to state, EIA data Origin State Destination State 2008 2009 2010 2008-2010 2009-2010 Alabama Alabama $3.97 $3.97 $4.52 6.7 13.7 Alabama Ohio W - - - - Colorado Alabama W - - - - Colorado Florida $10.21 $11.53 $11.95 8.2 3.7 Colorado Indiana $5.79 W - - - Colorado Iowa W - - - - Colorado Kentucky W - - - - Colorado Mississippi - - W - - Colorado Ohio - W - - - Colorado Tennessee W - - - - Illinois Alabama W $11.99 $12.87 W 7.3

446

Origin State Destination State  

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

7. Estimated truck transportation rates for coal, state to state, EIA data 7. Estimated truck transportation rates for coal, state to state, EIA data Origin State Destination State 2008 2009 2010 2008-2010 2009-2010 Alabama Alabama W W W W W Alabama Georgia - - W - - Alabama Indiana W W - - - Colorado Colorado W W W W W Colorado Michigan - - W - - Illinois Florida W - - - - Illinois Illinois $8.16 $5.20 $3.75 -32.2 -27.9 Illinois Indiana W W - - - Illinois Minnesota W W - - - Illinois Missouri $23.60 $22.20 $14.77 -20.9 -33.5 Indiana Alabama - W - - -

447

Offshore Wind Potential Tables  

Wind Powering America (EERE)

Offshore wind resource by state and wind speed interval within 50 nm of shore. Wind Speed at 90 m (ms) 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...

448

ATOMIC DATA AND NUCLEAR DATA TABLES 68, 183201 (1998) ARTICLE NO. DT970760  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

ATOMIC DATA AND NUCLEAR DATA TABLES 68, 183­201 (1998) ARTICLE NO. DT970760 OSCILLATOR STRENGTHS State University Columbus, Ohio 43210 An extensive dataset of oscillator strengths, line strengths by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol

Nahar, Sultana Nurun

449

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

450

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

W W 78.6 W 85.7 81.8 W 69.3 73.8 See footnotes at end of table. 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District and State 176 Energy Information...

451

Table 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

W 70.5 78.9 W 76.0 83.6 W 69.2 75.2 See footnotes at end of table. 35. Refiner Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD District and State 176 Energy Information...

452

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

453

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

454

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 - -

455

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

456

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

457

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

458

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

459

Monthly Flash Estimates of Electric Power Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7/22/2011 7/22/2011 Table of Contents 1. Commentary Page 1 2. Key Indicators of Generation, Consumption & Stocks Page 2 3. Month-to-Month Comparisons: Generation, Consumption and Stocks (Total) Page 3 4. Net Generation Trends Page 4 5. Fossil Fuel Consumption Trends Page 5 6. Fossil Fuel Stock Trends Page 6 7. Average Number of Days of Burn Non-Lignite Coal Page 7 8. Month-to-Month Comparisons: Electric Power Retail Sales and Average Prices Page 8 9. Retail Sales Trends Page 9 10. Average Retail Price Trends Page 10 11. Heating and Cooling Degree Days Page 11 12. Documentation Page 12 Monthly Flash Estimates of Data for: May 2011 Section 1. Commentary Electric Power Data The contiguous United States experienced temperatures that were slightly below normal in May 2011.

460

Monthly Flash Estimates of Electric Power Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6/24/2011 6/24/2011 Table of Contents 1. Commentary Page 1 2. Key Indicators of Generation, Consumption & Stocks Page 2 3. Month-to-Month Comparisons: Generation, Consumption and Stocks (Total) Page 3 4. Net Generation Trends Page 4 5. Fossil Fuel Consumption Trends Page 5 6. Fossil Fuel Stock Trends Page 6 7. Average Number of Days of Burn Non-Lignite Coal Page 7 8. Month-to-Month Comparisons: Electric Power Retail Sales and Average Prices Page 8 9. Retail Sales Trends Page 9 10. Average Retail Price Trends Page 10 11. Heating and Cooling Degree Days Page 11 12. Documentation Page 12 Monthly Flash Estimates of Data for: April 2011 Section 1. Commentary Electric Power Data The contiguous United States experienced temperatures that were above normal in April 2011.

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

Monthly Flash Estimates of Electric Power Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9/20/2011 9/20/2011 Table of Contents 1. Commentary Page 1 2. Key Indicators of Generation, Consumption & Stocks Page 2 3. Month-to-Month Comparisons: Generation, Consumption and Stocks (Total) Page 3 4. Net Generation Trends Page 4 5. Fossil Fuel Consumption Trends Page 5 6. Fossil Fuel Stock Trends Page 6 7. Average Number of Days of Burn Non-Lignite Coal Page 7 8. Month-to-Month Comparisons: Electric Power Retail Sales and Average Prices Page 8 9. Retail Sales Trends Page 9 10. Average Retail Price Trends Page 10 11. Heating and Cooling Degree Days Page 11 12. Documentation Page 12 Monthly Flash Estimates of Data for: July 2011 Section 1. Commentary Electric Power Data The contiguous United States experienced temperatures

462

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)

463

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

464

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

C3. Primary Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 C3. Primary Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Fossil Fuels Fossil Fuels (as commingled) Coal Natural Gas excluding Supplemental Gaseous Fuels a Petroleum Total Natural Gas including Supplemental Gaseous Fuels a Motor Gasoline including Fuel Ethanol a Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel b LPG c Motor Gasoline excluding Fuel Ethanol a Residual Fuel Oil Other d Total Alabama ........... 651.0 614.8 156.5 13.4 12.8 304.5 13.4 49.1 549.5 1,815.4 614.8 319.8 Alaska ............... 15.5 337.0 85.1 118.2 1.3 31.9 1.9 28.6 267.1 619.6 337.0 34.6 Arizona ............. 459.9 293.7 151.8 21.5 9.1 297.3 (s) 21.1 500.9 1,254.5 293.7 323.4 Arkansas ........... 306.1 288.6 134.9 5.9 9.4 165.4 0.2 19.8 335.7 930.5 288.6 175.6 California .......... 55.3 2,196.6 567.0 549.7 67.2 1,695.4 186.9 339.6 3,405.8 5,657.6 2,196.6

465

State Energy Data System (SEDS) Complete Dataset through 2009 | OpenEI  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Energy Data System (SEDS) Complete Dataset through 2009 Energy Data System (SEDS) Complete Dataset through 2009 Dataset Summary Description The State Energy Data System (SEDS) is compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA); it is a comprehensive database of energy statistics by state (and includes totals for the entire US). SEDS includes estimates of energy production, consumption, prices, and expenditures broken down by energy source and sector. Annual estimates are available from 1960 - 2009 for production and consumption estimates and from 1970 - 2009 for price and expenditure estimates. The multi-dimensional nature of this EIA dataset allows users to make comparisons across States, energy sources, sectors, and over time. Related Links Link to state SEDS SEDS documentation Complete SEDS data tables and files

466

Estimating Methods  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

Based on the project's scope, the purpose of the estimate, and the availability of estimating resources, the estimator can choose one or a combination of techniques when estimating an activity or project. Estimating methods, estimating indirect and direct costs, and other estimating considerations are discussed in this chapter.

1997-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

467

"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

468

"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

469

"RSE Table N13.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.1;"  

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

1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.1;" 1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N13.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," " " "," ",,,,"Sales and","Net Demand" "NAICS"," ",,,"Total Onsite","Transfers","for" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Purchases","Transfers In(b)","Generation(c)","Offsite","Electricity(d)" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"Food",1,1,1,8,1 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0 312,"Beverage and Tobacco Products",4,0,1,0,4 313,"Textile Mills",2,8,7,0,2 313210," Broadwoven Fabric Mills",3,0,22,0,3 314,"Textile Product Mills",11,73,8,90,11

470

"RSE Table E7.2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E7.2;"  

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

2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E7.2;" 2. Relative Standard Errors for Table E7.2;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ",,,"Consumption" " "," ",,"Consumption","per Dollar" "NAICS",,"Consumption","per Dollar","of Value" "Code(a)","Economic Characteristic(b)","per Employee","of Value Added","of Shipments" ,,"Total United States" " 311 - 339","ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES" ,"Value of Shipments and Receipts" ,"(million dollars)" ," Under 20",2,2,2 ," 20-49",2,3,2 ," 50-99",3,3,2 ," 100-249",2,3,2 ," 250-499",3,3,3

471

"RSE Table E2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E2.1;"  

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

E2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E2.1;" E2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table E2.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," "," ",," "," ",," " "Economic",,"Residual","Distillate",,"LPG and",,"Coke and"," " "Characteristic(a)","Total","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Natural Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal","Breeze","Other(e)" ,"Total United States" "Value of Shipments and Receipts" "(million dollars)" " Under 20",9,87,48,26,1,85,16,25 " 20-49",11,32,28,5,63,20,3,21 " 50-99",8,23,38,2,22,49,42,4

472

"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

473

"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

474

"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

475

"RSE Table N7.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N7.1;"  

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

N7.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N7.1;" N7.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table N7.1;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ",,,"Consumption" " "," ",,"Consumption","per Dollar" "NAICS"," ","Consumption","per Dollar","of Value" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","per Employee","of Value Added","of Shipments" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"Food",1,1,1 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0 312,"Beverage and Tobacco Products",8,4,5 313,"Textile Mills",3,2,3 313210," Broadwoven Fabric Mills",3,4,3 314,"Textile Product Mills",7,5,5

476

"RSE Table C12.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C12.1;"  

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

2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C12.1;" 2.1. Relative Standard Errors for Table C12.1;" " Units: Percents." ,,"Approximate",,,"Approximate","Average" ,,"Enclosed Floorspace",,"Average","Number","Number" "NAICS"," ","of All Buildings",,"Enclosed Floorspace","of All Buildings","of Buildings Onsite" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Onsite","Establishments(b)","per Establishment","Onsite","per Establishment" ,,"Total United States" , 311,"Food",2,0,2,1,1 311221," Wet Corn Milling",0,0,0,0,0 312,"Beverage and Tobacco Products",11,0,15,14,14

477

Estimating Demand Response Market Potential Among Large Commercial and Industrial Customers: A Scoping Study  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

of Program Participation Rates on Demand Response MarketTable 3-1. Methods of Estimating Demand Response PenetrationDemand Response

Goldman, Charles; Hopper, Nicole; Bharvirkar, Ranjit; Neenan, Bernie; Cappers, Peter

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

478

Program Potential: Estimates of Federal Energy Cost Savings from Energy Efficient Procurement  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

24 Energy and Costsavings in Table 7: Annual energy and cost savings of waterwere used to derive energy and cost savings estimates:

Taylor, Margaret

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

479

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}

480

OECD Input-Output Tables | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

OECD Input-Output Tables OECD Input-Output Tables Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: Input-Output Tables Agency/Company /Organization: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Topics: Co-benefits assessment, Market analysis, Co-benefits assessment, Pathways analysis Resource Type: Dataset Website: www.oecd.org/document/3/0,3343,en_2649_34445_38071427_1_1_1_1,00.html Country: Sweden, Finland, Japan, South Korea, Argentina, Australia, China, Israel, United Kingdom, Portugal, Romania, Greece, Poland, Slovakia, Chile, India, Canada, New Zealand, United States, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Austria, Italy, Netherlands, Ireland, France, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Mexico, Slovenia, South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, Switzerland, Taiwan, Russia

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

Shear wave seismic velocity profiling and depth to water table earthquake site  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

..................................................................................................... 6 Summary of seismic refraction/reflection methodsShear wave seismic velocity profiling and depth to water table ­ earthquake site response measurements for Valley County, Idaho Lee M. Liberty and Gabriel M. Gribler, Boise State University Center

Barrash, Warren

482

Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

W 839.2 135.0 1,251.9 See footnotes at end of table. 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil Volumes by PAD District and State Energy Information Administration...

483

Table 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

W 1,039.3 132.9 1,418.3 See footnotes at end of table. 46. Refiner No. 2 Distillate, Diesel Fuel, and Fuel Oil Volumes by PAD District and State Energy Information Administration...

484

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

74.6 77.3 90.7 86.5 77.3 68.4 See footnotes at end of table. 40. No. 2 Diesel Fuel Prices by Sales Type, PAD District, and Selected States Energy Information...

485

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

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

70.4 69.1 87.1 75.2 71.6 61.0 See footnotes at end of table. 40. No. 2 Diesel Fuel Prices by Sales Type, PAD District, and Selected States Energy Information...

486

Alfalfa water use pinpointed in saline, shallow water tables of Imperial Valley  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

shallow water tables of Imperial Valley Khaled M. Bali Qin water user in the Imperial Valley several western states.shallow, use in the Imperial Valley, where it moderately

Bali, Khaled M.; Grismer, Mark E.; Snyder, Richard L.

2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

487

Table A1. Refiner/Reseller Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, PAD...  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

78.2 101.8 83.6 87.5 74.7 See footnotes at end of table. A1. RefinerReseller Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, PAD District, and State, 1984-Present 452 Energy Information...

488

FRAUD POLICY Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Shihadeh, Alan

489

CHP NOTEBOOK Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Braun, Paul

490

PARENT HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Adali, Tulay

491

Automatic Construction of Diagnostic Tables  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

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

W. R. Willcox; S. P. Lapage

1972-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

492

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

493

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

494

International energy indicators. [Statistical tables and graphs  

SciTech Connect

International statistical tables and graphs are given for the following: (1) Iran - Crude Oil Capacity, Production and Shut-in, June 1974-April 1980; (2) Saudi Arabia - Crude Oil Capacity, Production, and Shut-in, March 1974-Apr 1980; (3) OPEC (Ex-Iran and Saudi Arabia) - Capacity, Production and Shut-in, June 1974-March 1980; (4) Non-OPEC Free World and US Production of Crude Oil, January 1973-February 1980; (5) Oil Stocks - Free World, US, Japan, and Europe (Landed, 1973-1st Quarter, 1980); (6) Petroleum Consumption by Industrial Countries, January 1973-December 1979; (7) USSR Crude Oil Production and Exports, January 1974-April 1980; and (8) Free World and US Nuclear Generation Capacity, January 1973-March 1980. Similar statistical tables and graphs included for the United States include: (1) Imports of Crude Oil and Products, January 1973-April 1980; (2) Landed Cost of Saudi Oil in Current and 1974 Dollars, April 1974-January 1980; (3) US Trade in Coal, January 1973-March 1980; (4) Summary of US Merchandise Trade, 1976-March 1980; and (5) US Energy/GNP Ratio, 1947 to 1979.

Bauer, E.K. (ed.)

1980-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

495

Microsoft Word - table_01_1.doc  

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

Table 1. Summary statistics for natural gas in the United States, 2008-2012 See footnotes at end of table. Number of Wells Producing at End of Year 476,652 493,100 487,627 514,637 482,822 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 15,134,644 14,414,287 13,247,498 12,291,070 12,736,678 From Oil Wells 5,609,425 5,674,120 5,834,703 5,907,919 4,969,668 From Coalbed Wells 2,022,228 2,010,171 1,916,762 1,779,055 1,539,395 From Shale Gas Wells 2,869,960 3,958,315 5,817,122 8,500,983 10,296,572 Total 25,636,257 26,056,893 26,816,085 28,479,026 29,542,313 Repressuring 3,638,622 3,522,090 3,431,587 3,365,313 3,259,680 Vented and Flared 166,909 165,360 165,928 209,439 212,848

496

An optimal filtering algorithm for table constraints  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

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

Jean-Baptiste Mairy; Pascal Van Hentenryck; Yves Deville

2012-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

497

Table Name query? | OpenEI Community  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

498

A study of design oriented cost estimation  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

, embossing, draw- 14 ing, forming and extruding of one inch or less. The value of 5 hours is based on the time taken for the following: 1. machine the unit length using a continuous path wire EDM machine, 2. make the die block, 3. make the punch, 4... Function-Cost Table for the Alternatives for Connecting Gear and Shaft 4. 5 Function-Cost Table for the Check Valve 4. 6 Function-Cost Table for the Gas Damper Assembly. . 69 Al. 1 Spreadsheet Used in Machining Cost Estimation A1. 2 Characterestics...

Raman, Ramchand P.

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

499

Chemistry Department Assessment Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Bogaerts, Steven

500

All Price Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

1. Commercial Sector Energy Expenditure Estimates, 2011 1. Commercial Sector Energy Expenditure Estimates, 2011 (Million Dollars) State Primary Energy Retail Electricity Total Energy f Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Biomass Total f Distillate Fuel Oil Kerosene LPG b Motor Gasoline c Residual Fuel Oil Total d Wood and Waste e Alabama - 310.9 164.6 0.3 63.1 6.3 - 234.3 4.0 549.2 2,331.4 2,880.6 Alaska 36.0 146.0 268.7 3.1 14.9 21.0 - 307.8 1.8 491.7 430.9 922.6 Arizona - 326.0 168.7 0.1 36.7 17.7 - 223.1 2.6 551.7 2,802.8 3,354.5 Arkansas - 355.9 86.2 (s) 28.7 10.2 - 125.1 5.8 486.7 911.1 1,397.8 California - 2,038.0 1,205.8 4.6 216.1 40.6 - 1,467.2 49.6 3,554.8 16,018.1 19,572.9 Colorado 8.2 437.8 138.1 0.5 62.7 6.1 - 207.4 8.0 661.4 1,878.0 2,539.4 Connecticut - 380.2 325.3 1.5 92.5 6.2 0.8 426.2 4.3 810.7 2,037.9 2,848.6 Delaware - 142.3 23.7 0.3 26.6 1.0 - 51.6 0.8 194.7 453.2 647.8 Dist. of Col. 0.2