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


1

FY 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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Salt  

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

Salt Salt Nature Bulletin No. 340-A April 12, 1969 Forest Preserve District of Cook County George W. Dunne, President Roland F. Eisenbeis, Supt. of Conservation SALT It is fortunate that Salt -- common salt, known to chemists as sodium chloride and to mineralogists as Halite -- is one of the most abundant substances on earth, because most of us crave it and must have it. Eskimos get along without salt because they live mostly on the uncooked flesh of fish and mammals. A few nomad tribes never eat it and do not need it because their diet contains so much milk cheese, and meat eaten raw or roasted. We people who eat boiled meat and many vegetables must have salt. Of the millions of tons produced commercially each year, only about three percent is used as table salt. Large quantities are required for refrigeration meat packing, curing and preserving fish, pickles, sauerkraut, and for other foods prepared in brine. A lot of it is needed for livestock. Salt is spread on sidewalks, streets and highways to melt ice in winter. It is used to glaze pottery, sewer pipe and other ceramics. It is required in many metallurgical processes, chemical industries, and the manufacture of such products as leather, glass, soap, bleaching powder and photographic supplies. It has about 14,000 uses.

10

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...

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Water table controlled syndepositional alteration textures and fabrics in salt pan halite: Modern analogues and ancient examples  

SciTech Connect

At the Devil's Golf Course, Death Valley, CA, vadose zone and phreatic zone alteration of subaqueously accumulated halite produces characteristic textures and fabrics that are recognizable in ancient salt pan halite (Late Permian Salado Formation) exposed in a shaft at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Water table depth and duration control fabric type. The crystal size of surficial halite is reduced by hygroscopic alteration. Efflorescent crusts extend the capillary fringe to the surface along vertical permeability pathways. When the water table is shallow, planar dissolution in the vadose zone removes all or most halite from successive thin depositional sequences and progressively disrupts strata consisting of clay or sulfate into irregular strata, stringers, isolated blebs, and, ultimately, 'blebby' laminae. With a deeper water table, point dissolution occurs along vertically oriented permeability pathways (e.g., polygonal margins) producing characteristic textures. Vertical pits, pipes, and macropores form first. Then the surface becomes slightly hummocky as point solution pathways to the water table widen and coalesce. A complex terrain of spires, hummocks, and columns develops and exhibits characteristic pods and lenses of fine halite surrounded by and containing solution lags of insoluble material. Relief is reduced by solution, and lenses and pods of fine halite become smaller and less common. Ultimately, halite is entirely removed leaving only insoluble material. Halite cements grow in the phreatic zone. Halite passively fills voids in more mechanically competent halite. Displacive halite cements dilate fabrics within less competent bedded halite. These textures can be integrated into an idealized lithologic sequence for ancient salt pan halite.

Holt, R.M. (IT Corporation, Albuquerque, NM (United States)); Powers, D.W.

1991-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

15

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

16

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.

17

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

18

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...

19

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

20

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...

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

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

22

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...

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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.

30

Salt-Bridge Transition State for the Charge Separation 2+ f CoOH(H2O)2  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Salt-Bridge Transition State for the Charge Separation Co(H2O)4 2+ f CoOH(H2O)2 + + H3O+ Martin K centers form a Co2+ -OH- -H3O+ salt bridge, lowering the barrier for the reaction. The transition state state of the charge separation Co(H2O)4 2+ f CoOH(H2O)2 + + H3O+ is located by density functional theory

Metz, Ricardo B.

31

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

32

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

33

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

34

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

35

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

36

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

37

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

38

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

39

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

40

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

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

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

42

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 &...

43

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

44

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

45

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

46

Iodized Salt  

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

Iodized Salt Iodized Salt Name: Theresa Location: N/A Country: N/A Date: N/A Question: Why do they put iodine in salt? Replies: Iodine was introduced into salt at earlier this century when it was discovered that certain areas of the US had a mark deficiency in iodine in the diet of people, and people developed a neck swelling (goiter). The Great Lakes region is one of these areas where the soil is lacking iodine. Goiter can be caused when the thyroid gland swells because of a lack of iodine in the diet. Most medical advise now states that iodine in salt is no longer necessary due to our food sources arising from all over the world. Steve Sample Hi Theresa...see, there are a variety of elements and compounds that are necessary for the proper maintenance of our life. One of these is iodine, since a small quantity of iodine is needed for the adequate functioning of the thyroid gland. A deficiency of iodine produces dire effects, as goiter, where the thyroid gland swollens due to the lack of iodine traces in the diet. The iodine affects directly the tyrhoid gland secretions, which themselves, to a great extent, control heart action, nerve response to stimuli, rate of body growth and metabolism.

47

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

48

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

49

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

50

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

51

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

52

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

53

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

54

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

55

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"

56

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

57

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

58

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

59

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

60

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

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

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

62

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

63

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

64

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

65

A new equation of state of salt-free flexible-chain polyelectrolyte solution: phase equilibria and osmotic pressure  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

We develop a first-principle equation of state of salt-free polyelectrolyte solution in the limit of infinitely long flexible polymer chains in the framework of a field-theoretical formalism beyond the linear Debye-Hueckel theory and predict a liquid-liquid phase separation induced by strong correlation attraction. As a reference system we choose a set of two independent ideal subsystems -- charged macromolecules immersed in a structureless oppositely charged background created by counterions (polymer one component plasma) and couterions immersed in oppositely charged background created by polymer chains (hard-core one component plasma). We calculate the excess free energy of polymer one component plasma in the framework of Modified Random Phase Approximation, whereas a contribution of charge densities fluctuations of neutralizing backgrounds we evaluate at the level of Gaussian approximation. We show that our theory is in a very good agreement with the results of Monte-Carlo and MD simulations for critical parameters of liquid-liquid phase separation and osmotic pressure in a wide range of monomer concentration above the critical point, respectively.

Yu. A. Budkov; A. L. Kolesnikov; N. Georgi; E. A. Nogovitsyn; M. G. Kiselev

2015-01-06T23:59:59.000Z

66

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

67

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

68

"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

69

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

70

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,

71

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

72

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

73

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%

74

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

75

Pressure-tuning spectroscopy of charge-transfer salts. X-ray crystallography and comparative studies in solution and in the solid state  

SciTech Connect

The highly colored pyridinium (P{sup +}) and cobaltocenium (C{sup +}) iodides are charge-transfer salts by virtue of the new electronic absorption bands that follow Mulliken theory. X-ray crystallography establishes the relevant interionic separation and steric orientation of the cation/anion pairs P{sup +}I{sup {minus}} and C{sup +}I{sup {minus}} constrained for optimum charge-transfer interaction in the crystal lattice. Spectral comparisons of the charge-transfer (CT) transitions by absorption (solution) and by diffuse reflectance (solid-state) measurements reveals the commonality of contact ion pairs (CIP) in aprotic nonpolar solvents (dichloromethane) with those extant in crystalline charge-transfer salts. As such, the compression of the charge-transfer salts P{sup +}I{sup {minus}} in the solid state by the application of pressures up to 140 kbar leads to unusual red shifts of the CT bands indicative of the dominance of destabilizing charge-transfer interactions.

Bockman, T.M.; Kochi, J.K. (Univ. of Houston, TX (USA)); Chang, H.R.; Drickamer, H.G. (Univ. of Illinois, Urbana (USA))

1990-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

76

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.

77

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...

78

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

79

Drilling Waste Management Fact Sheet: Disposal in Salt Caverns  

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

Salt Caverns Salt Caverns Fact Sheet - Disposal in Salt Caverns Introduction to Salt Caverns Underground salt deposits are found in the continental United States and worldwide. Salt domes are large, fingerlike projections of nearly pure salt that have risen to near the surface. Bedded salt formations typically contain multiple layers of salt separated by layers of other rocks. Salt beds occur at depths of 500 to more than 6,000 feet below the surface. Schematic Drawing click to view larger image Schematic Drawing of a Cavern in Domal Salt Schematic Drawing click to view larger image Schematic Drawing of a Cavern in Bedded Salt Salt caverns used for oil field waste disposal are created by a process called solution mining. Well drilling equipment is used to drill a hole

80

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

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

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

82

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

83

NOVEL GRAPHITE SALTS OF HIGH OXIDIZING POTENTIAL  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

hr volatiles none AsFS AsFS > CF4 AsFS AsFS AsFS C13.l AsF 6C16.l AsF 6 C24.3AsF6l/2 F2 > CF4> CF4 > CF4 Table VI-7. Graphite hexafluoroarsenate salts +

McCarron III, Eugene Michael

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

84

Does Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coliO157:H7 Enter the Viable but Nonculturable State in Salted Salmon Roe?  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...Hokkaido Institute of Public Health, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-0819...state in food is potentially dangerous from a public health viewpoint and may have to...state in food is potentially dangerous from a public health viewpoint and may have to...

Sou-Ichi Makino; Tsutomu Kii; Hiroshi Asakura; Toshikazu Shirahata; Tetsuya Ikeda; Kouichi Takeshi; Kikuji Itoh

2000-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

85

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

86

"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"

87

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:

88

"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

89

"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

90

"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)"

91

"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

92

"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

93

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

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

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

94

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

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

0 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" 0 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Four Most Populated States, 2005" " 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

95

"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

96

EM International Program Action Table  

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

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

97

Autumnal Biomass and Potential Productivity of Salt Marsh Fungi from 29 to 43 North Latitude along the United States Atlantic Coast  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...and controversies in tidal marsh ecology, in press. Kluwer...Spartina. . C. L. Montague R. G. Wiegert Salt marshes . J. T. Morris B. Haskin...cordgrass). . M. J. Norusis . R. A. Orson B. L. Howes Salt marsh development studies at Waquoit...

Steven Y. Newell; Linda K. Blum; Richard E. Crawford; Ting Dai; Michele Dionne

2000-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

98

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

99

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

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

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

100

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.

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


101

"Table 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

102

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

103

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

104

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

105

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

106

Salt Lake Community College | .EDUconnections  

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

SLCC Partners with DOE's Rocky Mountain Solar Training Program This program is a joint partnership between DOE's Solar Energy Technogies Program, Salt Lake Community College, Solar Energy International, and the Utah Solar Energy Association that works to accelerate use of solar electric technologies, training and facilities at community and technical college solar training programs within a 15 western United States region. DOE Solar Instructor Training Network Salt Lake City, Utah DOE Applauds SLCC's Science and Technical Programs Architectural Technology Biology Biotechnology Biomanufacturing Chemistry Computer Science Electric Sector Training Energy Management Engineering Geographic Information Sciences Geosciences InnovaBio Manufacturing & Mechanical Engineering Technology

107

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

108

Retrospective salt tectonics  

SciTech Connect

The conceptual breakthroughs in understanding salt tectonics can be recognized by reviewing the history of salt tectonics, which divides naturally into three parts: the pioneering era, the fluid era, and the brittle era. The pioneering era (1856-1933) featured the search for a general hypothesis of salt diapirism, initially dominated by bizarre, erroneous notions of igneous activity, residual islands, in situ crystallization, osmotic pressures, and expansive crystallization. Gradually data from oil exploration constrained speculation. The effects of buoyancy versus orogeny were debated, contact relations were characterized, salt glaciers were discovered, and the concepts of downbuilding and differential loading were proposed as diapiric mechanisms. The fluid era (1933-{approximately}1989) was dominated by the view that salt tectonics resulted from Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities in which a dense fluid overburden having negligible yield strength sinks into a less dense fluid salt layer, displacing it upward. Density contrasts, viscosity contrasts, and dominant wavelengths were emphasized, whereas strength and faulting of the overburden were ignored. During this era, palinspastic reconstructions were attempted; salt upwelling below thin overburdens was recognized; internal structures of mined diapirs were discovered; peripheral sinks, turtle structures, and diapir families were comprehended; flow laws for dry salt were formulated; and contractional belts on divergent margins and allochthonous salt sheets were recognized. The 1970s revealed the basic driving force of salt allochthons, intrasalt minibasins, finite strains in diapirs, the possibility of thermal convection in salt, direct measurement of salt glacial flow stimulated by rainfall, and the internal structure of convecting evaporites and salt glaciers. The 1980`s revealed salt rollers, subtle traps, flow laws for damp salt, salt canopies, and mushroom diapirs.

Jackson, M.P.A. [Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States)

1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

109

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...

110

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)

111

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

112

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)

113

Microsoft Word - table_10.doc  

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

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

114

Salt River Electric - Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program |  

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

Salt River Electric - Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program Salt River Electric - Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program Salt River Electric - Residential Energy Efficiency Rebate Program < Back Eligibility Residential Savings Category Home Weatherization Commercial Weatherization Sealing Your Home Heating & Cooling Construction Commercial Heating & Cooling Design & Remodeling Other Ventilation Heat Pumps Program Info State Kentucky Program Type Utility Rebate Program Rebate Amount Varies by technology Provider Salt River Electric Cooperative Salt River Electric serves as the rural electric provider in Kentucky's Bullitt, Nelson, Spencer, and Washington counties. Residential customers are eligible for a variety of cash incentives for energy efficiency. The Touchstone Energy Home Program provides a rebate of up to $250 to customers

115

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

116

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

117

Ancient Salt Beds  

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

North Carolina School of Medicine. In examining fluid inclusions in the salt and solid halite crystals, scientists found abundant cellulose microfibers, estimated to be 250 million...

118

Inside Sea Salt | EMSL  

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

Sea salt particles are emitted into the atmosphere by the action of ocean waves and bubble bursting at the ocean surface. They are ubiquitous in the atmospheric environment....

119

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...

120

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,...

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

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,...

122

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...

123

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) -...

124

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) -...

125

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) -...

126

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...

127

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...

128

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...

129

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...

130

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...

131

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...

132

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...

133

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...

134

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...

135

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...

136

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...

137

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...

138

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...

139

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...

140

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) -...

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


141

Table 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...

142

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) -...

143

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...

144

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) -...

145

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...

146

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

147

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.

148

Salt disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste.  

SciTech Connect

This report summarizes the state of salt repository science, reviews many of the technical issues pertaining to disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste in salt, and proposes several avenues for future science-based activities to further the technical basis for disposal in salt. There are extensive salt formations in the forty-eight contiguous states, and many of them may be worthy of consideration for nuclear waste disposal. The United States has extensive experience in salt repository sciences, including an operating facility for disposal of transuranic wastes. The scientific background for salt disposal including laboratory and field tests at ambient and elevated temperature, principles of salt behavior, potential for fracture damage and its mitigation, seal systems, chemical conditions, advanced modeling capabilities and near-future developments, performance assessment processes, and international collaboration are all discussed. The discussion of salt disposal issues is brought current, including a summary of recent international workshops dedicated to high-level waste disposal in salt. Lessons learned from Sandia National Laboratories' experience on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and the Yucca Mountain Project as well as related salt experience with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are applied in this assessment. Disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste in a suitable salt formation is attractive because the material is essentially impermeable, self-sealing, and thermally conductive. Conditions are chemically beneficial, and a significant experience base exists in understanding this environment. Within the period of institutional control, overburden pressure will seal fractures and provide a repository setting that limits radionuclide movement. A salt repository could potentially achieve total containment, with no releases to the environment in undisturbed scenarios for as long as the region is geologically stable. Much of the experience gained from United States repository development, such as seal system design, coupled process simulation, and application of performance assessment methodology, helps define a clear strategy for a heat-generating nuclear waste repository in salt.

Leigh, Christi D. (Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM); Hansen, Francis D.

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

149

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

150

Sensitivity of storage field performance to geologic and cavern design parameters in salt domes.  

SciTech Connect

A sensitivity study was performed utilizing a three dimensional finite element model to assess allowable cavern field sizes for strategic petroleum reserve salt domes. A potential exists for tensile fracturing and dilatancy damage to salt that can compromise the integrity of a cavern field in situations where high extraction ratios exist. The effects of salt creep rate, depth of salt dome top, dome size, caprock thickness, elastic moduli of caprock and surrounding rock, lateral stress ratio of surrounding rock, cavern size, depth of cavern, and number of caverns are examined numerically. As a result, a correlation table between the parameters and the impact on the performance of storage field was established. In general, slower salt creep rates, deeper depth of salt dome top, larger elastic moduli of caprock and surrounding rock, and a smaller radius of cavern are better for structural performance of the salt dome.

Ehgartner, Brian L. (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM); Park, Byoung Yoon

2009-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

151

Sensitivity of storage field performance to geologic and cavern design parameters in salt domes.  

SciTech Connect

A sensitivity study was performed utilizing a three dimensional finite element model to assess allowable cavern field sizes in strategic petroleum reserve salt domes. A potential exists for tensile fracturing and dilatancy damage to salt that can compromise the integrity of a cavern field in situations where high extraction ratios exist. The effects of salt creep rate, depth of salt dome top, dome size, caprock thickness, elastic moduli of caprock and surrounding rock, lateral stress ratio of surrounding rock, cavern size, depth of cavern, and number of caverns are examined numerically. As a result, a correlation table between the parameters and the impact on the performance of a storage field was established. In general, slower salt creep rates, deeper depth of salt dome top, larger elastic moduli of caprock and surrounding rock, and a smaller radius of cavern are better for structural performance of the salt dome.

Ehgartner, Brian L.; Park, Byoung Yoon; Herrick, Courtney Grant

2010-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

152

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.

153

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

154

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

30 30 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 11 478 11 478 5.79 Colorado................. 0 0 0 0 9 101 9 101 1.22 Illinois ..................... 0 0 17 767 12 216 29 982 11.90 Indiana ................... 0 0 12 81 10 32 22 113 1.37 Iowa ....................... 0 0 4 273 0 0 4 273 3.31 Kansas ................... 1 1 0 0 17 288 18 289 3.51 Kentucky ................ 0 0 3 10 20 211 23 221 2.68 Louisiana................ 6 63 0 0 8 530 14 594 7.19

155

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.

156

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.

157

Using Hydrated Salt Phase Change Materials for Residential Air Conditioning Peak Demand Reduction and Energy Conservation in Coastal and Transitional Climates in the State of California  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The recent rapid economic and population growth in the State of California have led to a significant increase in air conditioning use, especially in areas of the State with coastal and transitional climates. This fact makes ...

Lee, Kyoung Ok

2013-05-31T23:59:59.000Z

158

Laboratory creep and mechanical tests on salt data report (1975-1996): Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) thermal/structural interactions program  

SciTech Connect

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a facility located in a bedded salt formation in Carlsbad, New Mexico, is being used by the U.S. Department of Energy to demonstrate the technology for safe handling and disposal of transuranic wastes produced by defense activities in the United States. In support of that demonstration, mechanical tests on salt were conducted in the laboratory to characterize material behavior at the stresses and temperatures expected for a nuclear waste repository. Many of those laboratory test programs have been carried out in the RE/SPEC Inc. rock mechanics laboratory in Rapid City, South Dakota; the first program being authorized in 1975 followed by additional testing programs that continue to the present. All of the WIPP laboratory data generated on salt at RE/SPEC Inc. over the last 20 years is presented in this data report. A variety of test procedures were used in performance of the work including quasi-static triaxial compression tests, constant stress (creep) tests, damage recovery tests, and multiaxial creep tests. The detailed data is presented in individual plots for each specimen tested. Typically, the controlled test conditions applied to each specimen are presented in a plot followed by additional plots of the measured specimen response. Extensive tables are included to summarize the tests that were performed. Both the tables and the plots contain cross-references to the technical reports where the data were originally reported. Also included are general descriptions of laboratory facilities, equipment, and procedures used to perform the work.

Mellegard, K.D. [RE/SPEC Inc., Rapid City, SD (United States); Munson, D.E. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States)

1997-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

159

Review of the Savannah River Site, Salt Waste Processing Facility, Construction Quality of Piping and Pipe Supports, September 2012  

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

Savannah River Site, Salt Waste Processing Savannah River Site, Salt Waste Processing Facility, Construction Quality of Piping & Pipe Supports September 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Scope.................................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1

160

Review of the Savannah River Site, Salt Waste Processing Facility, Construction Quality of Piping and Pipe Supports, September 2012  

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

Savannah River Site, Salt Waste Processing Savannah River Site, Salt Waste Processing Facility, Construction Quality of Piping & Pipe Supports September 2012 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Scope.................................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1

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

Salt Waste Processing Initiatives  

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

Patricia Suggs Patricia Suggs Salt Processing Team Lead Assistant Manager for Waste Disposition Project Office of Environmental Management Savannah River Site Salt Waste Processing Initiatives 2 Overview * Current SRS Liquid Waste System status * Opportunity to accelerate salt processing - transformational technologies - Rotary Microfiltration (RMF) and Small Column Ion Exchange (SCIX) - Actinide Removal Process/Modular Caustic Side Solvent Extraction (ARP/MCU) extension with next generation extractant - Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) performance enhancement - Saltstone enhancements * Life-cycle impacts and benefits 3 SRS Liquid Waste Total Volume >37 Million Gallons (Mgal) Total Curies 183 MCi (51% ) 175 MCi (49% ) >358 Million Curies (MCi) Sludge 34.3 Mgal (92% ) 3.0 Mgal (8%)

162

Amine salts of nitroazoles  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

Compositions of matter, a method of providing chemical energy by burning said compositions, and methods of making said compositions are described. These compositions are amine salts of nitroazoles. 1 figure.

Kienyin Lee; Stinecipher, M.M.

1993-10-26T23:59:59.000Z

163

Salt Selected (FINAL)  

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

WHY SALT WAS SELECTED AS A DISPOSAL MEDIUM WHY SALT WAS SELECTED AS A DISPOSAL MEDIUM Waste Isolation Pilot Plant U.S. Department Of Energy Government officials and scientists chose the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site through a selection process that started in the 1950s. At that time, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a nationwide search for geological formations stable enough to contain radioactive wastes for thousands of years. In 1955, after extensive

164

A Dash of Salt  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

tx H2O | pg. 18 A Texas A&M researcher is assessing the impact of using moderately saline water for irrigating urban landscapes in West Texas and southern New Mexico. A DASH OF SALT Researcher assesses salinity impacts on grasses, trees... and shrubs A Dash of Salt Story by Danielle Supercinski { } tx H2O | pg. 19 ?The primary purpose of using moderately saline water for irrigation, including reclaimed water, is to conserve potable [drinkable] water,? said Dr. Seiichi Miyamoto, a...

Supercinski, Danielle

2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

165

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)

166

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

167

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

168

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

169

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

170

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

171

Fundamental Properties of Salts  

SciTech Connect

Thermal properties of molten salt systems are of interest to electrorefining operations, pertaining to both the Fuel Cycle Research & Development Program (FCR&D) and Spent Fuel Treatment Mission, currently being pursued by the Department of Energy (DOE). The phase stability of molten salts in an electrorefiner may be adversely impacted by the build-up of fission products in the electrolyte. Potential situations that need to be avoided, during electrorefining operations, include (i) fissile elements build up in the salt that might approach the criticality limits specified for the vessel, (ii) electrolyte freezing at the operating temperature of the electrorefiner due to changes in the liquidus temperature, and (iii) phase separation (non-homogenous solution). The stability (and homogeneity) of the phases can be monitored by studying the thermal characteristics of the molten salts as a function of impurity concentration. Simulated salt compositions consisting of the selected rare earth and alkaline earth chlorides, with a eutectic mixture of LiCl-KCl as the carrier electrolyte, were studied to determine the melting points (thermal characteristics) using a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC). The experimental data were used to model the liquidus temperature. On the basis of the this data, it became possible to predict a spent fuel treatment processing scenario under which electrorefining could no longer be performed as a result of increasing liquidus temperatures of the electrolyte.

Toni Y Gutknecht; Guy L Fredrickson

2012-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

172

Salt Creek Student Homepage  

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

Salt Creek Investigation Salt Creek Investigation</2> "Whales Dying in the Pacific Ocean" "Fish Dying in Lake Michigan" Recent headlines remind us of environmental problems near and far away. Scientists have been wondering if these problems could be due to the warmer temperatures this past spring and summer or could there be other reasons? Lack of rain and near drought conditions have forced many areas to restrict water use. We know from past history that pollution affects our drinking water and marine life. Remember what we read about Lake Erie and from reading A River Ran Wild by Lynne Cherry. There are many factors affecting the environment around us . . . even in Salt Creek which runs through our area. We may not be able to investigate the Pacific Ocean and Lake Michigan

173

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.

174

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

175

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 ......

176

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

177

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

178

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

179

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

180

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

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

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"

182

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

183

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

184

Proceedings of 3rd US/German Workshop on Salt Repository Research, Design,  

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

Proceedings of 3rd US/German Workshop on Salt Repository Research, Proceedings of 3rd US/German Workshop on Salt Repository Research, Design, and Operation Proceedings of 3rd US/German Workshop on Salt Repository Research, Design, and Operation The 3rd U.S./German Workshop on Salt Repository Research, Design and Operation was held in Albuquerque and Carlsbad, New Mexico on October 8-11, 2012. Approximately 60 salt research scientists from Germany and the United States met to discuss repository science state of the art. Workshop topics included: 1) Safety case for heat-generating waste disposal in salt; 2) Benchmark modeling in preparation for thermomechanical field-scale tests; and 3) Reconsolidation of granular salt. Collaboration being pursued by U.S. and German salt repository researchers is presented in the report.

185

Ammoniated salt heat pump  

SciTech Connect

A thermochemical heat pump/energy storage system using liquid ammoniate salts is described. The system, which can be used for space heating or cooling, provides energy storage for both functions. The bulk of the energy is stored as chemical energy and thus can be stored indefinitely. The system is well suited to use with a solar energy source or industrial waste heat.

Haas, W.R.; Jaeger, F.J.; Giordano, T.J.

1981-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

186

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...

187

SALT DAMAGE CRITERION PROOF-OF-CONCEPT RESEARCH  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this study was to conduct a field-scale application demonstrating the use of continuum damage mechanics to determine the minimum allowable operating pressure of compressed natural gas storage caverns in salt formations. A geomechanical study was performed of two natural gas storage caverns (one existing and one planned) utilizing state-of-the-art salt mechanics to assess the potential for cavern instability and collapse. The geomechanical study consisted primarily of laboratory testing, theoretical development, and analytical/numerical tasks. A total of 50 laboratory tests was performed on salt specimens to aid in the development and definition of the material model used to predict the behavior of rock salt. Material model refinement was performed that improved the predictive capability of modeling salt during damage healing, recovery of work-hardened salt, and the behavior of salt at stress states other than triaxial compression. Results of this study showed that the working gas capacity of the existing cavern could be increased by 18 percent and the planned cavern could be increased by 8 percent using the proposed method compared to a conventional stress-based method. Further refinement of the continuum damage model is recommended to account for known behavior of salt at stress conditions other than triaxial compression that is not characterized accurately by the existing model.

Kerry L. DeVries; Kirby D. Mellegard; Gary D. Callahan

2002-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

188

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

189

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

190

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

191

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

192

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

193

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.

194

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

195

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

196

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

197

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

198

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

199

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 -- --

200

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

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

Salt Creek Scenario  

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

Scenario Scenario HELP Index Summary Scenario References Student Pages Two branches of Salt Creek run through the city of Rolling Meadows, Illinois, not far from our school. Five members of our team of eighth grade teachers from different subject areas (science, language arts, bilingual education and special education), decided to develop an interdisciplinary study of Salt Creek as a way of giving our students authentic experiences in environmental studies. The unit begins when students enter school in August, running through the third week of September, and resuming for three weeks in October. Extension activities based on using the data gathered at the creek continue throughout the school year, culminating in a presentation at a city council meeting in the spring.

202

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

203

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...

204

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...

205

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...

206

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...

207

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...

208

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...

209

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...

210

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

211

Energy Efficient Buildings, Salt Lake County, Utah  

SciTech Connect

Executive Summary Salt Lake County's Solar Photovoltaic Project - an unprecedented public/private partnership Salt Lake County is pleased to announce the completion of its unprecedented solar photovoltaic (PV) installation on the Calvin R. Rampton Salt Palace Convention Center. This 1.65 MW installation will be one the largest solar roof top installations in the country and will more than double the current installed solar capacity in the state of Utah. Construction is complete and the system will be operational in May 2012. The County has accomplished this project using a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) financing model. In a PPA model a third-party solar developer will finance, develop, own, operate, and maintain the solar array. Salt Lake County will lease its roof, and purchase the power from this third-party under a long-term Power Purchase Agreement contract. In fact, this will be one of the first projects in the state of Utah to take advantage of the recent (March 2010) legislation which makes PPA models possible for projects of this type. In addition to utilizing a PPA, this solar project will employ public and private capital, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG), and public/private subsidized bonds that are able to work together efficiently because of the recent stimulus bill. The project also makes use of recent changes to federal tax rules, and the recent re-awakening of private capital markets that make a significant public-private partnership possible. This is an extremely innovative project, and will mark the first time that all of these incentives (EECBG grants, Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, New Markets tax credits, investment tax credits, public and private funds) have been packaged into one project. All of Salt Lake County's research documents and studies, agreements, and technical information is available to the public. In addition, the County has already shared a variety of information with the public through webinars, site tours, presentations, and written correspondence.

Barnett, Kimberly

2012-04-30T23:59:59.000Z

212

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

213

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

214

EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Regional/State Underground Natural Gas  

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

Regional/State Underground Natural Gas Storage Table Regional/State Underground Natural Gas Storage Table About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Regional Underground Natural Gas Storage, Close of 2007 Depleted-Reservoir Storage Aquifer Storage Salt-Cavern Storage Total Region/ State # of Sites Working Gas Capacity (Bcf) Daily Withdrawal Capability (MMcf) # of Sites Working Gas Capacity (Bcf) Daily Withdrawal Capability (MMcf) # of Sites Working Gas Capacity (Bcf) Daily Withdrawal Capability (MMcf) # of Sites Working Gas Capacity (Bcf) Daily Withdrawal Capability (MMcf) Central Region Colorado 8 42 1,088 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 42 1,088 Iowa 0 0 0 4 77 1,060 0 0 0 4 77 1,060

215

Salt caverns for oil field waste disposal.  

SciTech Connect

Salt caverns used for oil field waste disposal are created in salt formations by solution mining. When created, caverns are filled with brine. Wastes are introduced into the cavern by pumping them under low pressure. Each barrel of waste injected to the cavern displaces a barrel of brine to the surface. The brine is either used for drilling mud or is disposed of in an injection well. Figure 8 shows an injection pump used at disposal cavern facilities in west Texas. Several types of oil field waste may be pumped into caverns for disposal. These include drilling muds, drill cuttings, produced sands, tank bottoms, contaminated soil, and completion and stimulation wastes. Waste blending facilities are constructed at the site of cavern disposal to mix the waste into a brine solution prior to injection. Overall advantages of salt cavern disposal include a medium price range for disposal cost, large capacity and availability of salt caverns, limited surface land requirement, increased safety, and ease of establishment of individual state regulations.

Veil, J.; Ford, J.; Rawn-Schatzinger, V.; Environmental Assessment; RMC, Consultants, Inc.

2000-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

216

salt lake city.cdr  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

Locations of the Salt Lake City Processing and Disposal Sites Locations of the Salt Lake City Processing and Disposal Sites This fact sheet provides information about the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 Title I processing site and disposal site at Salt Lake City, Utah. These sites are managed by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management. Salt Lake City, Utah, Processing and Disposal Sites Site Descriptions and History Regulatory Setting The former Salt Lake City processing site is located about 4 miles south-southwest of the center of Salt Lake City, Utah, at 3300 South and Interstate 15. The Vitro Chemical Company processed uranium and vanadium ore at the site from 1951 until 1968. Milling operations conducted at the processing site created radioactive tailings, a predominantly sandy material.

217

Molten salt lithium cells  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

Lithium-based cells are promising for applications such as electric vehicles and load-leveling for power plants since lithium is very electropositive and light weight. One type of lithium-based cell utilizes a molten salt electrolyte and is operated in the temperature range of about 400 to 500/sup 0/C. Such high temperature operation accelerates corrosion problems and a substantial amount of energy is lost through heat transfer. The present invention provides an electrochemical cell which may be operated at temperatures between about 100 to 170/sup 0/C. The cell is comprised of an electrolyte, which preferably includes lithium nitrate, and a lithium or lithium alloy electrode.

Raistrick, I.D.; Poris, J.; Huggins, R.A.

1980-07-18T23:59:59.000Z

218

Molten salt lithium cells  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

Lithium-based cells are promising for applications such as electric vehicles and load-leveling for power plants since lithium is very electropositive and light weight. One type of lithium-based cell utilizes a molten salt electrolyte and is operated in the temperature range of about 400.degree.-500.degree. C. Such high temperature operation accelerates corrosion problems and a substantial amount of energy is lost through heat transfer. The present invention provides an electrochemical cell (10) which may be operated at temperatures between about 100.degree.-170.degree. C. Cell (10) comprises an electrolyte (16), which preferably includes lithium nitrate, and a lithium or lithium alloy electrode (12).

Raistrick, Ian D. (Menlo Park, CA); Poris, Jaime (Portola Valley, CA); Huggins, Robert A. (Stanford, CA)

1982-02-09T23:59:59.000Z

219

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

220

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

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


221

Microsoft Word - table_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...............................

222

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

223

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

224

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

225

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

226

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

227

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

228

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

229

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

230

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

231

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

232

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

233

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

234

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

235

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

236

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

237

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

238

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

239

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

240

Electrochromic Salts, Solutions, and Devices  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

Electrochromic salts. Electrochromic salts of dicationic viologens such as methyl viologen and benzyl viologen associated with anions selected from bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, bis(perfluoroethylsulfonyl)imide, and tris(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)methide are produced by metathesis with the corresponding viologen dihalide. They are highly soluble in molten quarternary ammonium salts and together with a suitable reductant provide electrolyte solutions that are used in electrochromic windows.

Burrell, Anthony K. (Los Alamos, NM); Warner, Benjamin P. (Los Alamos, NM); McClesky, T. Mark (Los Alamos, NM)

2008-10-14T23:59:59.000Z

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

Electrochromic Salts, Solutions, and Devices  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

Electrochromic salts. Electrochromic salts of dicationic viologens such as methyl viologen and benzyl viologen associated with anions selected from bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, bis(perfluoroethylsulfonyl)imide, and tris(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)methide are produced by metathesis with the corresponding viologen dihalide. They are highly soluble in molten quarternary ammonium salts and together with a suitable reductant provide electrolyte solutions that are used in electrochromic windows.

Burrell, Anthony K. (Los Alamos, NM); Warner, Benjamin P. (Los Alamos, NM); McClesky, T. Mark (Los Alamos, NM)

2008-11-11T23:59:59.000Z

242

Electrochromic salts, solutions, and devices  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

Electrochromic salts. Electrochromic salts of dicationic viologens such as methyl viologen and benzyl viologen associated with anions selected from bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, bis(perfluoroethylsulfonyl)imide, and tris(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)methide are produced by metathesis with the corresponding viologen dihalide. They are highly soluble in molten quarternary ammonium salts and together with a suitable reductant provide electrolyte solutions that are used in electrochromic windows.

Burrell, Anthony K. (Los Alamos, NM); Warner, Benjamin P. (Los Alamos, NM); McClesky,7,064,212 T. Mark (Los Alamos, NM)

2006-06-20T23:59:59.000Z

243

Batteries using molten salt electrolyte  

DOE Patents (OSTI)

An electrolyte system suitable for a molten salt electrolyte battery is described where the electrolyte system is a molten nitrate compound, an organic compound containing dissolved lithium salts, or a 1-ethyl-3-methlyimidazolium salt with a melting temperature between approximately room temperature and approximately 250.degree. C. With a compatible anode and cathode, the electrolyte system is utilized in a battery as a power source suitable for oil/gas borehole applications and in heat sensors.

Guidotti, Ronald A. (Albuquerque, NM)

2003-04-08T23:59:59.000Z

244

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) -...

245

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) -...

246

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...

247

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...

248

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...

249

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...

250

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%

251

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

252

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 -- -- --

253

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

254

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

255

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

256

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

257

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

258

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

259

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

260

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.

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

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

262

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

263

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

264

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

265

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

266

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

267

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

268

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

269

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

270

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

271

Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms  

Crop performance is severely affected by high salt concentrations in soils. To engineer more salt-tolerant plants it is crucial to unravel the key components of the plant salt-tolerance network. Here we review our understanding of the core salt-tolerance mechanisms in plants. Recent studies have shown that stress sensing and signaling components can play important roles in regulating the plant salinity stress response. We also review key Na+ transport and detoxification pathways and the impact of epigenetic chromatin modifications on salinity tolerance. In addition, we discuss the progress that has been made towards engineering salt tolerance in crops, including marker-assisted selection and gene stacking techniques. We also identify key open questions that remain to be addressed in the future.

Deinlein, Ulrich; Stephan, Aaron B.; Horie, Tomoaki; Luo, Wei; Xu, Guohua; Schroeder, Julian I.

2014-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

272

Proceedings of 3rd US/German Workshop on Salt Repository Research...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

New Mexico on October 8-11, 2012. Approximately 60 salt research scientists from Germany and the United States met to discuss repository science state of the art. Workshop...

273

Salt River Project Smart Grid Project | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Salt River Project Smart Grid Project Salt River Project Smart Grid Project Jump to: navigation, search Project Lead Salt River Project Country United States Headquarters Location Tempe, Arizona Recovery Act Funding $56,859,359.00 Total Project Value $114,003,719.00 Coverage Area Coverage Map: Salt River Project Smart Grid Project Coordinates 33.414768°, -111.9093095° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[]}

274

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

275

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

276

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

277

Independent Oversight Assessment, Salt Waste Processing Facility...  

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

Salt Waste Processing Facility Project - January 2013 January 2013 Assessment of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Salt Waste Processing Facility Project The U.S. Department of Energy...

278

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

279

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."

280

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

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

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:

282

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

283

DOE/EA-1544: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Anadarko/Veritas Salt Creek 3D Vibroseis Project (June 2005)  

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

___________________________ ___________________________ Salt Creek 3D Vibroseis Project Environmental Assessment BLM Casper Field Office June 2005 Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ANADARKO / VERITAS SALT CREEK 3D VIBROSEIS PROJECT DOE EA No. EA-1544 BLM Case No. WYW-163071 BLM EA No. WY- 060-EA05-95 WOGCC Permit No. 025-05-015G _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Salt Creek 3D Vibroseis Project Environmental Assessment BLM Casper Field Office June 2005 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Purpose and need for action 3 1.3 Conformance with land use plan 3 1.4 Relationship to statutes, regulations, 4

284

Lithium borate cluster salts as novel redox shuttles for overcharge protection of lithium-ion cells.  

SciTech Connect

Redox shuttle is a promising mechanism for intrinsic overcharge protection in lithium-ion cells and batteries. Two lithium borate cluster salts are reported to function as both the main salt for a nonaqueous electrolyte and the redox shuttle for overcharge protection. Lithium borate cluster salts with a tunable redox potential are promising candidates for overcharge protection for most positive electrodes in state-of-the-art lithium-ion cells.

Chen, Z.; Liu, J.; Jansen, A. N.; Casteel, B.; Amine, K.; GirishKumar, G.; Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

285

"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

286

"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"

287

"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" ,

288

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

289

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.

290

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%

291

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)

292

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

293

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

294

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

295

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

296

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.

297

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

298

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...

299

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

300

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

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

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...

302

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...

303

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

304

Stress measurements in rock salt using hydraulic fracturing  

SciTech Connect

Hydraulic fracturing was applied in horizontal drillholes in the Salado salt formation near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Testing took place approximately 650 m below surface in order to support the design of a Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for the disposal of radioactive waste from defense activities of the United States. Hydraulic fracturing was performed primarily to determine whether the virgin in situ stress state at the WIPP site is isotropic and whether the magnitudes of the the virgin in situ stresses correspond to the weight of the overburden. Beyond these limited objectives, measurements are being analyzed to evaluate the usefulness of hydraulic fracturing in salt formations in general. Such measurements are desirable to determine stresses induced by mining and to monitor time-dependent stress changes around underground excavations in salt masses. Hydraulic fracturing measurements are also relevant to the evaluation of allowable pressures before fracturing is induced in pressurized boreholes and storage caverns.

Wawersik, W.R.; Stone, C.M.

1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

305

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

306

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

307

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

308

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

309

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

310

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

311

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

312

Microsoft Word - table_26.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

313

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

314

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

315

Microsoft Word - table_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

316

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

317

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

318

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

319

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

320

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

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

322

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

323

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

324

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

325

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

326

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

327

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

328

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

329

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 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

330

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

331

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

332

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

333

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

334

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

335

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

336

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

337

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

338

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

339

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

340

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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


341

Microsoft Word - table_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

342

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

343

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

344

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

345

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

346

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

347

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 --

348

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

349

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

350

Transport of Alkali Halides through a Liquid Organic Membrane Containing a Ditopic Salt-Binding Receptor  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

in the solid state as contact ion pairs. Transport experiments, using a supported liquid membrane and high saltTransport of Alkali Halides through a Liquid Organic Membrane Containing a Ditopic Salt and anion receptors. All transport systems exhibit the same qualitative order of ion selectivity; that is

Smith, Bradley D.

351

Water Research 39 (2005) 16751686 Electricity generation using membrane and salt bridge  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Water Research 39 (2005) 1675­1686 Electricity generation using membrane and salt bridge microbial Hydrogen Energy (H2E) Center, The Pennsylvania State University, 212 Sackett Bld., University Park, PA, USA also examined power output in a MFC with a salt bridge instead of a membrane system. Power output

352

Summary - Salt Waste Processing Facility Design at the Savannah River Site  

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

Salt Waste Processing Facility Salt Waste Processing Facility ETR Report Date: November 2006 ETR-4 United States Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) External Technical Review of the Salt Waste Processing Facility Design at the Savannah River Site (SRS) Why DOE-EM Did This Review The Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) is intended to remove and concentrate the radioactive strontium (Sr), actinides, and cesium (Cs) from the bulk salt waste solutions in the SRS high-level waste tanks. The sludge and strip effluent from the SWPF that contain concentrated Sr, actinide, and Cs wastes will be sent to the SRS Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), where they will be vitrified. The decontaminated salt solution (DSS) that is left after removal of the highly

353

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

354

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...

355

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

356

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

357

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

358

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

359

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

360

Large-scale dynamic compaction demonstration using WIPP salt: Fielding and preliminary results  

SciTech Connect

Reconsolidation of crushed rock salt is a phenomenon of great interest to programs studying isolation of hazardous materials in natural salt geologic settings. Of particular interest is the potential for disaggregated salt to be restored to nearly an impermeable state. For example, reconsolidated crushed salt is proposed as a major shaft seal component for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Project. The concept for a permanent shaft seal component of the WIPP repository is to densely compact crushed salt in the four shafts; an effective seal will then be developed as the surrounding salt creeps into the shafts, further consolidating the crushed salt. Fundamental information on placement density and permeability is required to ensure attainment of the design function. The work reported here is the first large-scale compaction demonstration to provide information on initial salt properties applicable to design, construction, and performance expectations. The shaft seals must function for 10,000 years. Over this period a crushed salt mass will become less permeable as it is compressed by creep closure of salt surrounding the shaft. These facts preclude the possibility of conducting a full-scale, real-time field test. Because permanent seals taking advantage of salt reconsolidation have never been constructed, performance measurements have not been made on an appropriately large scale. An understanding of potential construction methods, achievable initial density and permeability, and performance of reconsolidated salt over time is required for seal design and performance assessment. This report discusses fielding and operations of a nearly full-scale dynamic compaction of mine-run WIPP salt, and presents preliminary density and in situ (in place) gas permeability results.

Ahrens, E.H.; Hansen, F.D. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States). Nuclear Waste Technology Repository Isolation Systems

1995-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

Freshwater fish in salt water  

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

Freshwater fish in salt water Freshwater fish in salt water Name: Shannon Location: N/A Country: N/A Date: N/A Question: What would actually happen if a fresh water fish had to live in salt water? Replies: For most fish, they would die. But some, like eels and salmon, can move freely between the two at certain stages of their lives. To do this they have special mechanisms of excretion and absorption of salt and water. --ProfBill If you put a freshwater fish into saltwater, most fish would lose weight (from losing water from its body) and eventually die. Approximately 2% of all 21000 species of fish actually move from freshwater to saltwater or from salt to fresh at some point in their lives, the move would kill any other fish. But even with these special varieties of fish, the move must be gradual so their bodies can adjust, or they too, will die from the change. If you want to learn more about why the freshwater fish will lose water, (or why a saltwater fish in freshwater would gain water), look up the words "diffusion" and "osmosis"

362

Fracture and Healing of Rock Salt Related to Salt Caverns  

SciTech Connect

In recent years, serious investigations of potential extension of the useful life of older caverns or of the use of abandoned caverns for waste disposal have been of interest to the technical community. All of the potential applications depend upon understanding the reamer in which older caverns and sealing systems can fail. Such an understanding will require a more detailed knowledge of the fracture of salt than has been necessary to date. Fortunately, the knowledge of the fracture and healing of salt has made significant advances in the last decade, and is in a position to yield meaningful insights to older cavern behavior. In particular, micromechanical mechanisms of fracture and the concept of a fracture mechanism map have been essential guides, as has the utilization of continuum damage mechanics. The Multimechanism Deformation Coupled Fracture (MDCF) model, which is summarized extensively in this work was developed specifically to treat both the creep and fracture of salt, and was later extended to incorporate the fracture healing process known to occur in rock salt. Fracture in salt is based on the formation and evolution of microfractures, which may take the form of wing tip cracks, either in the body or the boundary of the grain. This type of crack deforms under shear to produce a strain, and furthermore, the opening of the wing cracks produce volume strain or dilatancy. In the presence of a confining pressure, microcrack formation may be suppressed, as is often the case for triaxial compression tests or natural underground stress situations. However, if the confining pressure is insufficient to suppress fracture, then the fractures will evolve with time to give the characteristic tertiary creep response. Two first order kinetics processes, closure of cracks and healing of cracks, control the healing process. Significantly, volume strain produced by microfractures may lead to changes in the permeability of the salt, which can become a major concern in cavern sealing and operation. The MDCF model is used in three simulations of field experiments in which indirect measures were obtained of the generation of damage. The results of the simulations help to verify the model and suggest that the model captures the correct fracture behavior of rock salt. The model is used in this work to estimate the generation and location of damage around a cylindrical storage cavern. The results are interesting because stress conditions around the cylindrical cavern do not lead to large amounts of damage. Moreover, the damage is such that general failure can not readily occur, nor does the extent of the damage suggest possible increased permeation when the surrounding salt is impermeable.

Chan, K.S.; Fossum, A.F.; Munson, D.E.

1999-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

363

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.

364

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

365

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...

366

Why Sequence Great Salt Lake?  

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

Great Salt Lake? Great Salt Lake? On average, the Great Salt Lake is four times saltier than the ocean and also has heavy metals, high concentrations of sulfur and petroleum seeps. In spite of all this, the lake is the saltiest body of water to support life. The lake hosts brine shrimp, algae and a diverse array of microbes, not to mention the roughly 5 million birds that migrate there annually. The secret to these microbes' ability to survive under such harsh conditions might be revealed in their genes. Researchers expect the genetic data will provide insight into how the microorganisms tolerate pollutants such as sulfur and detoxify pollutants such as sulfur and heavy metals like mercury. The information could then be used to develop bioremediation techniques. Researchers also expect that sequencing microorganisms sampled

367

Disposal of NORM-Contaminated Oil Field Wastes in Salt Caverns  

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

Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy Office of Fossil Energy National Petroleum Technology Office National Petroleum Technology Office under Contract W -31-109- under Contract W -31-109- Eng Eng -38 -38 Prepared by: Prepared by: John A. Veil, Karen P. Smith, David John A. Veil, Karen P. Smith, David Tomasko Tomasko , , Deborah Deborah Elcock Elcock , Deborah L. Blunt, and , Deborah L. Blunt, and Gustavious Gustavious P. W illiams P. W illiams Argonne National Laboratory August 1998 August 1998 Disposal of NORM - Disposal of NORM - Contam inated O il Contam inated O il Field Wastes in Salt Field Wastes in Salt Caverns Caverns Disposal of NORM in Salt Caverns Page i Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

368

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

369

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

370

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

371

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

372

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

373

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

374

Nekton of new seagrass habitats colonizing a subsided salt marsh in Galveston Bay, Texas  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Subsidence and erosion of intertidal salt marsh at Galveston Island State Park, Texas, created new areas of subtidal habitat that...Halophila engelmanni and shoalgrassHalodule wrightii as well as adjacent nonvege...

Seth P. King; P. Sheridan

2006-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

375

Natural Salt Pollution and Water Supply Reliability in the Brazos River Basin  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The Brazos River Basin is representative of several major river basins in the Southwestern United States in regard to natural salt pollution. Geologic formations underlying portions of the upper watersheds of the Brazos, Colorado, Pecos, Canadian...

Wurbs, Ralph A.; Karama, Awes S.; Saleh, Ishtiaque; Ganze, C. Keith

376

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

377

Disposal of soluble salt waste from coal gasification  

SciTech Connect

This paper addresses pollutants in the form of soluble salts and resource recovery in the form of water and land. A design for disposal of soluble salts has been produced. The interactions of its parameters have been shown by a process design study. The design will enable harmonious compliance with United States Public Laws 92-500 and 94-580, relating to water pollution and resource recovery. In the disposal of waste salt solutions, natural water resources need not be contaminated, because an encapsulation technique is available which will immobilize the salts. At the same time it will make useful landforms available, and water as a resource can be recovered. There is a cost minimum when electrodialysis and evaporation are combined, which is not realizable with evaporation alone, unless very low-cost thermal energy is available or unless very high-cost pretreatment for electrodialysis is required. All the processes making up the proposed disposal process are commercially available, although they are nowhere operating commercially as one process. Because of the commercial availability of the processes, the proposed process may be a candidate 'best commercially available treatment' for soluble salt disposal.

McKnight, C.E.

1980-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

378

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.

379

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...

380

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

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

Salt dome discoveries mounting in Mississippi  

SciTech Connect

Exploratory drilling around piercement salt domes in Mississippi has met with a string of successes in recent months. Exploration of these salt features is reported to have been initiated through the review of non-proprietary, 2D seismic data and subsurface control. This preliminary data and work were then selectively upgraded by the acquisition of additional, generally higher quality, conventional 2D seismic lines. This current flurry of successful exploration and ensuing development drilling by Amerada Hess Corp. on the flanks of salt domes in Mississippi has resulted in a number of significant Hosston discoveries/producers at: Carson salt dome in Jefferson Davis County; Dry Creek salt dome in Covington County, Midway salt dome in lamar County, Monticello salt dome in Lawrence County, and Prentiss salt dome in Jefferson Davis County. The resulting production from these fields is gas and condensate, with wells being completed on 640 acre production units.

Ericksen, R.L. [Mississippi Office of Geology, Jackson, MS (United States)

1996-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

382

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

383

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...

384

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...

385

Arylsulfatase Activity in Salt Marsh Soils  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...Arylsulfatase Activity in Salt Marsh Soils R. L. Oshrain W. J. Wiebe...Arylsulfatase Activity in Salt Marsh Soilst R. L. OSHRAIN: AND W...Gallagher, J. L., R. J. Reimold, and D...Remote sensing and salt marsh productivity, p. 338-348...

R. L. Oshrain; W. J. Wiebe

1979-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

386

The economics of salt cake recycling  

SciTech Connect

The Process Evaluation Section at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has a major program aimed at developing cost-effective technologies for salt cake recycling. This paper addresses the economic feasibility of technologies for the recovery of aluminum, salt, and residue-oxide fractions from salt cake. Four processes were assessed for salt recovery from salt cake: (1) base case: leaching in water at 25{degree}C, with evaporation to crystallize salts; (2) high-temperature case: leaching in water at 250{degree}C, with flash crystallization to precipitate salts; (3) solventlantisolvent case: leaching in water at 25{degree}C, concentrating by evaporation, and reacting with acetone to precipitate salts; and (4) electrodialysis: leaching in water at 25{degree}C, with concentration and recovery of salts by electrodialysis. All test cases for salt recovery had a negative present value, given current pricing structure and 20% return on investment. Although manufacturing costs (variable plus fixed) could reasonably be recovered in the sales price of the salt product, capital costs cannot. The economics for the recycling processes are improved, however, if the residueoxide can be sold instead of landfilled. For example, the base case process would be profitable at a wet oxide value of $220/metric ton. The economics of alternative scenarios were also considered, including aluminum recovery with landfilling of salts and oxides.

Graziano, D.; Hryn, J.N.; Daniels, E.J.

1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

387

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

388

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

389

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 - -

390

Simple Method for Killing Halophilic Bacteria in Contaminated Solar Salt  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...growth and also to sterilize solar salt. Two samples of solar salt, contaminated with red...it had a much lower buffering capacity than the used salt, presumably...economical method of freeing solar salt from halophilic bacteria...

D. J. Kushner; G. Masson; N. E. Gibbons

1965-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

391

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

392

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

393

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

394

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

395

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

396

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)

397

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

398

Radar investigation of the Hockley salt dome  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

: Geophysics RADAR INVESTIGATION OF THE HOCKLEY SALT DOME A Thesis by UAMES ANDREW HLUCHANEK A'pproved as to style and content by: (Head of Departme t ? Member) May 1. 973 ABSTRACT Radar investigation of the Hockley Salt Dome. . (Nay, 1973) James... Andrew Hluchanek, B. S. , Texas A&M University Directed by: Dr. Robert R. Unterberger Radar probing through salt was accomplished at 17 radar stations established in the United Salt Company mine at Hockley, Texas. The top of the salt dom is mapped...

Hluchanek, James Andrew

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

399

Disposal of oil field wastes into salt caverns: Feasibility, legality, risk, and costs  

SciTech Connect

Salt caverns can be formed through solution mining in the bedded or domal salt formations that are found in many states. Salt caverns have traditionally been used for hydrocarbon storage, but caverns have also been used to dispose of some types of wastes. This paper provides an overview of several years of research by Argonne National Laboratory on the feasibility and legality of using salt caverns for disposing of oil field wastes, the risks to human populations from this disposal method, and the cost of cavern disposal. Costs are compared between the four operating US disposal caverns and other commercial disposal options located in the same geographic area as the caverns. Argonne`s research indicates that disposal of oil field wastes into salt caverns is feasible and legal. The risk from cavern disposal of oil field wastes appears to be below accepted safe risk thresholds. Disposal caverns are economically competitive with other disposal options.

Veil, J.A. [Argonne National Lab., Washington, DC (United States). Water Policy Program

1997-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

400

"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

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

"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

402

"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

403

"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

404

"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

405

"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

406

"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

407

"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

408

"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

409

"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

410

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}

411

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

412

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

413

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...

414

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...

415

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...

416

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...

417

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

418

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...

419

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

420

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

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

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

422

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

423

Geohydromechanical Processes in the Excavation Damaged Zone in Crystalline Rock, Rock Salt, and Indurated and Plastic Clays  

SciTech Connect

The creation of an excavation disturbed zone or excavation damaged zone is expected around all man-made openings in geologic formations. Macro- and micro-fracturing, and in general a redistribution of in situ stresses and rearrangement of rock structures, will occur in this zone, resulting in drastic changes of permeability to flow, mainly through the fractures and cracks induced by excavation. Such an EDZ may have significant implications for the operation and long-term performance of an underground nuclear waste repository. Various issues of concern need to be evaluated, such as processes creating fractures in the excavation damaged zone, the degree of permeability increase, and the potential for sealing or healing (with permeability reduction) in the zone. In recent years, efforts along these lines have been made for a potential repository in four rock types-crystalline rock, salt, indurated clay, and plastic clay-and these efforts have involved field, laboratory, and theoretical studies. The present work involves a synthesis of the ideas and issues that emerged from presentations and discussions on EDZ in these four rock types at a CLUSTER Conference and Workshop held in Luxembourg in November, 2003. First, definitions of excavation disturbed and excavation damaged zones are proposed. Then, an approach is suggested for the synthesis and intercomparison of geohydromechanical processes in the EDZ for the four rock types (crystalline rock, salt, indurated clay, and plastic clay). Comparison tables of relevant processes, associated factors, and modeling and testing techniques are developed. A discussion of the general state-of-the-art and outstanding issues are also presented. A substantial bibliography of relevant papers on the subject is supplied at the end of the paper.

Tsang, Chin-Fu; Bernier, Frederic; Davies, Christophe

2004-06-20T23:59:59.000Z

424

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

425

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

426

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

427

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

428

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

429

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...

430

Table 4. Principal shale gas plays: natural gas production and proved reserves, 2010-1011  

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

Principal shale gas plays: natural gas production and proved reserves, 2010-2011 Principal shale gas plays: natural gas production and proved reserves, 2010-2011 trillion cubic feet Basin Shale Play State(s) Production Reserves Production Reserves Production Reserves Fort Worth Barnett TX 1.9 31.0 2.0 32.6 0.1 1.6 Appalachian Marcellus PA, WV, KY, TN, NY, OH 0.5 13.2 1.4 31.9 0.9 18.7 Texas-Louisiana Salt Haynesville/Bossier TX, LA 1.5 24.5 2.5 29.5 1.0 5.0 Arkoma Fayetteville AR 0.8 12.5 0.9 14.8 0.1 2.3 Anadarko Woodford TX, OK 0.4 9.7 0.5 10.8 0.1 1.1 Western Gulf Eagle Ford TX 0.1 2.5 0.4 8.4 0.3 5.9 Sub-total 5.2 93.4 7.7 128.0 2.5 34.6 Other shale gas plays 0.2 4.0 0.3 3.6 0.1 -0.4 All U.S. Shale Plays 5.4 97.4 8.0 131.6 2.6 34.2 Change 2011-2010 2010 2011 Notes: Some columns may not add up to its subtotal because of independent rounding. Natural gas is wet after lease separation. The above table is

431

An Investigation of the Integrity of Cemented Casing Seals with Application to Salt Cavern Sealing and Abandonment  

SciTech Connect

This research project was pursued in three key areas. (1) Salt permeability testing under complex stress states; (2) Hydraulic and mechanical integrity investigations of the well casing shoe through benchscale testing; and (3) Geomechanical modeling of the fluid/salt hydraulic and mechanical interaction of a sealed cavern.

Pfeifle, T.W.; Mellegard, K.D.; Skaug, N.T.; Bruno, M.S.

2001-04-19T23:59:59.000Z

432

Water Dynamics in Divalent and Monovalent Concentrated Salt Chiara H. Giammanco, Daryl B. Wong, and Michael D. Fayer*  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Water Dynamics in Divalent and Monovalent Concentrated Salt Solutions Chiara H. Giammanco, Daryl B, United States ABSTRACT: Water hydrogen bond dynamics in concentrated salt solutions are studied using causes a shift in absorption frequency relative to that of the OD stretch absorption in bulk pure water

Fayer, Michael D.

433

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

434

Microsoft Word - table_A1.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

78 78 Table A1. Natural Gas Losses and Unaccounted for by State, 2010 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama .................................. 946 914 531,243 0.4 Alaska...................................... 534 5,228 333,316 1.7 Arizona .................................... 787 -124 331,257 0.2 Arkansas.................................. 666 4,170 271,512 1.8 California ................................. 4,217 31,286 2,273,958 1.6 Colorado .................................. 831 1,599 501,438 0.5 Connecticut.............................. 1,595 -1,192 199,440 0.2 Delaware ................................. 113 887 54,825 1.8 District of Columbia.................. 67 1,329 33,302 4.2 Florida...................................... 11,007 2,365 1,158,522 1.2 Georgia....................................

435

The Salt Defense Disposal Investigations (SDDI)  

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

Salt Defense Disposal Investigations (SDDI) Salt Defense Disposal Investigations (SDDI) will utilize a newly mined Underground Research Lab (URL) in WIPP to perform a cost effective, proof-of-principle field test of the emplacement of heat-generating radioactive waste and validate modeling efforts. The goals of the SDDI Thermal Test are to: * Demonstrate a proof-of-principle concept for in-drift disposal in salt. * Investigate, in a specific emplacement concept, the response of the salt to heat. * Develop a full-scale response for run-of- mine (ROM) salt. * Develop a validated coupled process model for disposal of heat-generating wastes in salt. * Evaluate the environmental conditions of the

436

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

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

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

437

Action Codes Table | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

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

438

Multiphase Flow and Cavern Abandonment in Salt  

SciTech Connect

This report will explore the hypothesis that an underground cavity in gassy salt will eventually be gas filled as is observed on a small scale in some naturally occurring salt inclusions. First, a summary is presented on what is known about gas occurrences, flow mechanisms, and cavern behavior after abandonment. Then, background information is synthesized into theory on how gas can fill a cavern and simultaneously displace cavern fluids into the surrounding salt. Lastly, two-phase (gas and brine) flow visualization experiments are presented that demonstrate some of the associated flow mechanisms and support the theory and hypothesis that a cavity in salt can become gas filled after plugging and abandonment

Ehgartner, Brian; Tidwell, Vince

2001-02-13T23:59:59.000Z

439

Workplace Charging Challenge Partner: Salt River Project  

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

The mission of Salt River Project's (SRP) Electric Vehicle Initiative is to encourage greater use of clean energy transportation. Under this program, SRP's headquarters received two Level 2...

440

Sandia National Laboratories: molten salt test loop  

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

Partnership, Renewable Energy, Research & Capabilities, Solar, Solar Newsletter, SunShot, Systems Engineering AREVA and Sandia began operations of their molten salt...

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

Granular Salt Summary: Reconsolidation Principles and Applications  

SciTech Connect

The purposes of this paper are to review the vast amount of knowledge concerning crushed salt reconsolidation and its attendant hydraulic properties (i.e., its capability for fluid or gas transport) and to provide a sufficient basis to understand reconsolidation and healing rates under repository conditions. Topics covered include: deformation mechanisms and hydro-mechanical interactions during reconsolidation; the experimental data base pertaining to crushed salt reconsolidation; transport properties of consolidating granulated salt and provides quantitative substantiation of its evolution to characteristics emulating undisturbed rock salt; and extension of microscopic and laboratory observations and data to the applicable field scale.

Frank Hansen; Till Popp; Klaus Wieczorek; Dieter Sthrenberg

2014-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

442

Description of Energy Intensity Tables (12)  

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

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

443

Sandia National Labs: PCNSC: IBA Table  

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

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

444

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables - Supplemental  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

445

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables - Supplemental  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

446

Review of the Savannah River Site Salt Waste Processing Facility Safety Basis and Design Development, August 2013  

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

Savannah River Site Savannah River Site Salt Waste Processing Facility Safety Basis and Design Development May 2011 August 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Office of Enforcement and Oversight Office of Health, Safety and Security U.S. Department of Energy Table of Contents 1.0 Purpose.................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 3.0 Scope and Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 3

447

Disparities in Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Mortgage Outcomes and  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

who applied for Salt Lake County properties selected West Valley. · As the overall application volume). · Over 54 percent of all Salt Lake County mortgage applications from 2006 to 2011 were for homes in West Valley, unincorporated areas, West Jordan, and Salt Lake City. For Hispanic/Latino applicants

Feschotte, Cedric

448

Annual Energy Outlook 2007 - Low Price Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

449

Annual Energy Outlook 2007 - Low Economic Growth Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

450

State Energy Program Strategic Plan: February 2007  

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

State Energy Program Strategic Plan )HEUXDU SEP Strategic Plan February 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword iii Mission and Operations 1 Current Energy Trends 1 Key Drivers 3 Setting...

451

Electric Power Monthly - Monthly Data Tables | OpenEI  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Power Monthly - Monthly Data Tables Power Monthly - Monthly Data Tables Dataset Summary Description Monthly electricity generation figures (and the fuel consumed to produce it). Source information available at EIA. Source EIA Date Released July 20th, 2010 (4 years ago) Date Updated July 20th, 2010 (4 years ago) Keywords consumption EIA Electricity Electricity Consumption Electricity Generation Data application/vnd.ms-excel icon generation_state_mon.xls (xls, 32.5 MiB) application/vnd.ms-excel icon consumption_state_mon.xls (xls, 14.7 MiB) Quality Metrics Level of Review Some Review Comment Temporal and Spatial Coverage Frequency Monthly Time Period License License Other or unspecified, see optional comment below Comment Work of the U.S. Federal Government Rate this dataset Usefulness of the metadata

452

Table  

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

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

453

Table  

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

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

454

Table  

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

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

455

Table  

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

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

456

Table  

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

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

457

Table  

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

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

458

Table  

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

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

459

Table  

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

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

460

Table  

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

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

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

Table  

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

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

462

Table  

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

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

463

Table  

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

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

464

Table  

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

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

465

Table  

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

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

466

Table  

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

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

467

Table  

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

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

468

Table  

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

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

469

Table  

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

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

470

Table  

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

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

471

Table  

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

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

472

Table  

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

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

473

Table  

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

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

474

Table  

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

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

475

Table  

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

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

476

Table  

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

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

477

Table  

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

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

478

Table  

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

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

479

Table  

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

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

480

Table  

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

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

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

Table  

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

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

482

Table  

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

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

483

Table  

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

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

484

Table  

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

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

485

Table  

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

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

486

Table  

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

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

487

Table  

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

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

488

Table  

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

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

489

Table  

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

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

490

Molten Salt Oxidation of mixed wastes  

SciTech Connect

Molten Salt Oxidation (MSO) can be characterized as a simple noncombustion process; the basic concept is to introduce air and wastes into a bed of molten salt, oxidize the organic wastes in the molten salt, use the heat of oxidation to keep the salt molten and remove the salt for disposal or processing and recycling. The process has been developed through bench-scale and pilot-scale testing, with successful destruction demonstration of a wide variety of hazardous and mixed (radioactive and hazardous) wastes including chemical warfare agents, combustible solids, halogenated solvents, polychlorinated biphenyls, plutonium-contaminated solids, uranium-contaminated solvents and fission product-contaminated oil. The MSO destruction efficiency of the hazardous organic constituents in the wastes exceeds 99.9999%. Radioactive species, such as actinides and rare earth fission products, are retained in the salt bath. These elements can be recovered from the spent salt using conventional chemical processes, such as ion exchange, to render the salt as nonradioactive and nonhazardous. This paper reviews the principles and capabilities of MSO, previous mixed waste studies, and a new US Department of Energy program to demonstrate the process for the treatment of mixed wastes.

Gay, R.L.; Navratil, J.D.; Newman, C. [Rockwell International Corp., Canoga Park, CA (United States). Rocketdyne Div.

1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

491

Metal salt catalysts for enhancing hydrogen spillover  

SciTech Connect

A composition for hydrogen storage includes a receptor, a hydrogen dissociating metal doped on the receptor, and a metal salt doped on the receptor. The hydrogen dissociating metal is configured to spill over hydrogen to the receptor, and the metal salt is configured to increase a rate of the spill over of the hydrogen to the receptor.

Yang, Ralph T; Wang, Yuhe

2013-04-23T23:59:59.000Z

492

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

493

Salt Wells Geothermal Exploratory Drilling Program EA  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Salt Wells Geothermal Exploratory Drilling Program EA Salt Wells Geothermal Exploratory Drilling Program EA (DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2009-0006-EA) Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Salt Wells Geothermal Exploratory Drilling Program EA (DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2009-0006-EA) Abstract No abstract available. Author Bureau of Land Management Published U.S. Department of the Interior- Bureau of Land Management, Carson City Field Office, Nevada, 09/14/2009 DOI Not Provided Check for DOI availability: http://crossref.org Online Internet link for Salt Wells Geothermal Exploratory Drilling Program EA (DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2009-0006-EA) Citation Bureau of Land Management. Salt Wells Geothermal Exploratory Drilling Program EA (DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2009-0006-EA) [Internet]. 09/14/2009. Carson City, NV. U.S. Department of the Interior- Bureau of Land Management,

494

Solar Policy Environment: Salt Lake  

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

The overall objective of the Solar Salt Lake (SSL) team is to develop a fully-scoped city and county-level implementation plan that will facilitate at least an additional ten megawatts of solar photovoltaic (PV) installations in the government, commercial, industrial, and residential sectors by 2015. To achieve this aggressive goal, the program strategy includes a combination of barrier identification, research, and policy analysis that utilizes the input of various stakeholders. Coupled with these activities will be the development and implementation of pilot installations in the government and residential sectors, and broad outreach to builders and potential practitioners of solar energy products in the process. In this way, while creating mechanisms to enable a demand for solar, SSL will also facilitate capacity building for suppliers, thereby helping to ensure long-term sustainability for the regional market.

495

Underground Salt Haul Truck Fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot...  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Underground Salt Haul Truck Fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant February 5, 2014 March 2014 Salt Haul Truck Fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Salt Haul Truck Fire at the...

496

Table-top job analysis  

SciTech Connect

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

Not Available

1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

497

EIA-Annual Energy Outlook 2010 - Low Economic Growth Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

498

EIA-Annual Energy Outlook 2010 - High Economic Growth Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

499

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, October 1991  

SciTech Connect

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

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

1991-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

500

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, August 1991  

SciTech Connect

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

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

1991-09-01T23:59:59.000Z