National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for total 1989-2010 actual

  1. Table 8.13 Electric Utility Demand-Side Management Programs, 1989-2010

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

    3 Electric Utility Demand-Side Management Programs, 1989-2010 Year Actual Peakload Reductions 1 Energy Savings Electric Utility Costs 4 Energy Efficiency 2 Load Management 3 Total Megawatts Million Kilowatthours Thousand Dollars 5 1989 NA NA 12,463 14,672 872,935 1990 NA NA 13,704 20,458 1,177,457 1991 NA NA 15,619 24,848 1,803,773 1992 7,890 9,314 17,204 35,563 2,348,094 1993 10,368 12,701 23,069 45,294 2,743,533 1994 11,662 13,340 25,001 52,483 2,715,657 1995 13,212 16,347 29,561 57,421

  2. Table 16. Total Energy Consumption, Projected vs. Actual Projected

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

    6. Total Energy Consumption, Projected vs. Actual Projected (quadrillion Btu) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ...

  3. Table 4. Total Petroleum Consumption, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Total Petroleum Consumption, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (million barrels)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",6449.55,6566.35,6643,6723.3,6810.9,6880.25,6956.9,7059.1,7124.8,7205.1,7296.35,7376.65,7446,7522.65,7595.65,7665,7712.45,7774.5 "AEO

  4. Table 12. Total Coal Consumption, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Total Coal Consumption, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (million short tons)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",920,928,933,938,943,948,953,958,962,967,978,990,987,992,1006,1035,1061,1079 "AEO 1995",,935,940,941,947,948,951,954,958,963,971,984,992,996,1002,1013,1025,1039 "AEO

  5. Table 12. Total Coal Consumption, Projected vs. Actual Projected

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

    Total Coal Consumption, Projected vs. Actual Projected (million short tons) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 920 928 933 938 943 948 953 958 962 967 978 990 987 992 1006 1035 1061 1079 AEO 1995 935 940 941 947 948 951 954 958 963 971 984 992 996 1002 1013 1025 1039 AEO 1996 937 942 954 962 983 990 1004 1017 1027 1033 1046 1067 1070 1071 1074 1082 1087 1094 1103 AEO 1997 948 970 987 1003 1017 1020 1025 1034 1041

  6. Table 15. Total Electricity Sales, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Total Electricity Sales, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (billion kilowatt-hours)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",2843,2891,2928,2962,3004,3039,3071,3112,3148,3185,3228,3263,3298,3332,3371,3406,3433,3469 "AEO 1995",,2951,2967,2983,3026,3058,3085,3108,3134,3166,3204,3248,3285,3321,3357,3396,3433,3475 "AEO

  7. Table 15. Total Electricity Sales, Projected vs. Actual Projected

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

    Total Electricity Sales, Projected vs. Actual Projected (billion kilowatt-hours) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 2843 2891 2928 2962 3004 3039 3071 3112 3148 3185 3228 3263 3298 3332 3371 3406 3433 3469 AEO 1995 2951 2967 2983 3026 3058 3085 3108 3134 3166 3204 3248 3285 3321 3357 3396 3433 3475 AEO 1996 2973 2998 3039 3074 3106 3137 3173 3215 3262 3317 3363 3409 3454 3505 3553 3604 3660 3722 3775 AEO 1997 3075

  8. Table 4. Total Petroleum Consumption, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Total Petroleum Consumption, Projected vs. Actual Projected (million barrels) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 6450 6566 6643 6723 6811 6880 6957 7059 7125 7205 7296 7377 7446 7523 7596 7665 7712 7775 AEO 1995 6398 6544 6555 6676 6745 6822 6888 6964 7048 7147 7245 7337 7406 7472 7537 7581 7621 AEO 1996 6490 6526 6607 6709 6782 6855 6942 7008 7085 7176 7260 7329 7384 7450 7501 7545 7581 7632 7676 AEO 1997 6636 6694

  9. Table 16. Total Energy Consumption, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Total Energy Consumption, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (quadrillion Btu)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",88.02,89.53,90.72,91.73,92.71,93.61,94.56,95.73,96.69,97.69,98.89,100,100.79,101.7,102.7,103.6,104.3,105.23 "AEO 1995",,89.21,89.98,90.57,91.91,92.98,93.84,94.61,95.3,96.19,97.18,98.38,99.37,100.3,101.2,102.1,102.9,103.88 "AEO

  10. Table 8. Total Natural Gas Consumption, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Total Natural Gas Consumption, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (trillion cubic feet)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",19.87,20.21,20.64,20.99,21.2,21.42,21.6,21.99,22.37,22.63,22.95,23.22,23.58,23.82,24.09,24.13,24.02,24.14 "AEO 1995",,20.82,20.66,20.85,21.21,21.65,21.95,22.12,22.25,22.43,22.62,22.87,23.08,23.36,23.61,24.08,24.23,24.59 "AEO

  11. Table 18. Total Delivered Commercial Energy Consumption, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Total Delivered Commercial Energy Consumption, Projected vs. Actual Projected (quadrillion Btu) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6 AEO 1995 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.3 AEO 1996 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.2 AEO 1997 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.9

  12. Table 8. Total Natural Gas Consumption, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Actual Projected (trillion cubic feet) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 19.87 20.21 20.64 20.99 ...

  13. Table 10.9 Photovoltaic Cell and Module Shipments by Sector and End Use, 1989-2010 (Peak Kilowatts )

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

    Photovoltaic Cell and Module Shipments by Sector and End Use, 1989-2010 (Peak Kilowatts 1 ) Year By Sector By End Use Total Residential Commercial 3 Industrial 4 Electric Power 5 Other 6 Grid-Connected 2 Off-Grid 2 Centralized 7 Distributed 8 Domestic 9 Non-Domestic 10 Total Shipments of Photovoltaic Cells and Modules 11<//td> 1989 1,439 6,057 [R] 3,993 785 551 [12] 1,251 [12] 2,620 8,954 12,825 1990 1,701 8,062 [R] 2,817 826 432 [12] 469 [12] 3,097 10,271 13,837 1991 3,624 5,715 [R] 3,947

  14. Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases PropanePropylene Normal ButaneButylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Other ...

  15. Total

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

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases PropanePropylene Normal ButaneButylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Fuel ...

  16. Total..........................................................

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

    0.9 Q Q Q Heat Pump......7.7 0.3 Q Q Steam or Hot Water System......Census Division Total West Energy Information Administration ...

  17. Total..........................................................

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

    0.9 Q Q Q Heat Pump......6.2 3.8 2.4 Steam or Hot Water System......Census Division Total Northeast Energy Information ...

  18. Total..........................................................................

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

    . 111.1 20.6 15.1 5.5 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 4.6 3.6 1.1 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 2.8 2.2 0.6 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 1.9 1.4 0.5 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.3 1.7 0.5 2,500 to

  19. Total..........................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.5 0.3 Q 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 3.9 2.4 1.5 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 4.4 3.2 1.2 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 3.5 2.4 1.1 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 3.2 2.1 1.1 2,500 to

  20. Total..........................................................................

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

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.6 Q Q 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 9.0 4.2 1.5 3.2 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 8.6 4.7 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 6.0 2.9 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 4.1 2.1 0.7

  1. Total................................................

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

    .. 111.1 86.6 2,522 1,970 1,310 1,812 1,475 821 1,055 944 554 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................. 3.2 0.9 261 336 162 Q Q Q 334 260 Q 500 to 999.................................... 23.8 9.4 670 683 320 705 666 274 811 721 363 1,000 to 1,499.............................. 20.8 15.0 1,121 1,083 622 1,129 1,052 535 1,228 1,090 676 1,500 to 1,999.............................. 15.4 14.4 1,574 1,450 945 1,628 1,327 629 1,712 1,489 808 2,000 to

  2. Total..........................................................

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

    .. 111.1 24.5 1,090 902 341 872 780 441 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500...................................... 3.1 2.3 403 360 165 366 348 93 500 to 999.............................................. 22.2 14.4 763 660 277 730 646 303 1,000 to 1,499........................................ 19.1 5.8 1,223 1,130 496 1,187 1,086 696 1,500 to 1,999........................................ 14.4 1.0 1,700 1,422 412 1,698 1,544 1,348 2,000 to 2,499........................................ 12.7

  3. Total...................................................................

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

    Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500............................................ 3.2 0.4 Q 0.6 1.7 0.4 500 to 999................................................... 23.8 4.8 1.4 4.2 10.2 3.2 1,000 to 1,499............................................. 20.8 10.6 1.8 1.8 4.0 2.6 1,500 to 1,999............................................. 15.4 12.4 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 2,000 to 2,499............................................. 12.2 10.7 1.0 0.2 Q Q 2,500 to

  4. Total.........................................................................

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

    Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 2 Fewer than 500.................................................. 3.2 Q 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 500 to 999.......................................................... 23.8 1.5 5.4 5.5 6.1 5.3 1,000 to 1,499.................................................... 20.8 1.4 4.0 5.2 5.0 5.2 1,500 to 1,999.................................................... 15.4 1.4 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.8 2,000 to 2,499.................................................... 12.2 1.4 3.2 3.0 2.3 2.3

  5. Total..........................................................................

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

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.0 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 4.6 3.9 9.0 6.3 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 2.8 4.4 8.6 5.0 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 1.9 3.5 6.0 4.0 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.3 3.2 4.1

  6. Total..........................................................................

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

    7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.4 Q Q 0.5 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 2.5 1.5 2.1 3.7 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 1.1 2.0 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.4

  7. Total...........................................................

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

    14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500.................................... 3.2 0.7 Q 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 Q 500 to 999........................................... 23.8 2.7 1.4 2.2 2.8 5.5 5.1 3.0 1.1 1,000 to 1,499..................................... 20.8 2.3 1.4 2.4 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 1.6 1,500 to 1,999..................................... 15.4 1.8 1.4 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.2 2,000 to 2,499..................................... 12.2 1.4 0.9

  8. Word Pro - Untitled1

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

    3 Electric Utility Demand-Side Management Programs Actual Peakload Reductions Total, 1989-2010 Actual Peakload Reductions, 2010 Energy Savings, 1989-2010 Electric Utility Costs,¹ 1989-2010 266 U.S. Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Review 2011 1 Program costs consist of all costs associated with providing the various Demand-Side Management (DSM) programs or measures. The costs of DSM programs fall into these major categories: customer rebates/incentives,

  9. Total DOE/NNSA

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 Actuals 2009 Actuals 2010 Actuals 2011 Actuals 2012 Actuals 2013 Actuals 2014 Actuals 2015 Actuals Total DOE/NNSA 4,385 4,151 4,240 4,862 5,154 5,476 7,170 7,593 Total non-NNSA 3,925 4,017 4,005 3,821 3,875 3,974 3,826 3765 Total Facility 8,310 8,168 8,245 8,683 9,029 9,450 10,996 11,358 non-NNSA includes DOE offices and Strategic Parternship Projects (SPP) employees NNSA M&O Employee Reporting

  10. How People Actually Use Thermostats

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meier, Alan; Aragon, Cecilia; Hurwitz, Becky; Mujumdar, Dhawal; Peffer, Therese; Perry, Daniel; Pritoni, Marco

    2010-08-15

    Residential thermostats have been a key element in controlling heating and cooling systems for over sixty years. However, today's modern programmable thermostats (PTs) are complicated and difficult for users to understand, leading to errors in operation and wasted energy. Four separate tests of usability were conducted in preparation for a larger study. These tests included personal interviews, an on-line survey, photographing actual thermostat settings, and measurements of ability to accomplish four tasks related to effective use of a PT. The interviews revealed that many occupants used the PT as an on-off switch and most demonstrated little knowledge of how to operate it. The on-line survey found that 89% of the respondents rarely or never used the PT to set a weekday or weekend program. The photographic survey (in low income homes) found that only 30% of the PTs were actually programmed. In the usability test, we found that we could quantify the difference in usability of two PTs as measured in time to accomplish tasks. Users accomplished the tasks in consistently shorter times with the touchscreen unit than with buttons. None of these studies are representative of the entire population of users but, together, they illustrate the importance of improving user interfaces in PTs.

  11. Could Material Defects Actually Improve Solar Cells?

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

    Could Material Defects Actually Improve Solar Cells? Could Material Defects Actually Improve Solar Cells? March 21, 2016 Contact: Kathy Kincade, kkincade@lbl.gov, +1 510 495 2124 NRELsolarcell Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are using supercomputers to study what may seem paradoxical: certain defects in silicon solar cells may actually improve their performance. The findings, published January 11, 2016 in Applied Physics Letters,

  12. Total Imports

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

    Data Series: Imports - Total Imports - Crude Oil Imports - Crude Oil, Commercial Imports - by SPR Imports - into SPR by Others Imports - Total Products Imports - Total Motor Gasoline Imports - Finished Motor Gasoline Imports - Reformulated Gasoline Imports - Reformulated Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol Imports - Other Reformulated Gasoline Imports - Conventional Gasoline Imports - Conv. Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol Imports - Conv. Gasoline Blended w/ Fuel Ethanol, Ed55 & < Imports -

  13. Country Total

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

    Country Total Percent of U.S. total Canada 61,078 1% China 3,323,297 57% Germany 154,800 3% Japan 12,593 0% India 47,192 1% South Korea 251,105 4% All Others 2,008,612 34% Total 5,858,677 100% Table 7 . Photovoltaic module import shipments by country, 2014 (peak kilowatts) Note: All Others includes Cambodia, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Turkey Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, 'Annual Photovoltaic

  14. State Total

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

    State Total Percent of U.S. total Alabama 482 0.0% Alaska 81 0.0% Arizona 194,476 3.3% Arkansas 336 0.0% California 3,163,120 53.0% Colorado 47,240 0.8% Connecticut 50,745 0.9% Delaware 6,600 0.1% District of Columbia 751 0.0% Florida 18,593 0.3% Georgia 47,660 0.8% Hawaii 78,329 1.3% Illinois 5,795 0.1% Indiana 37,016 0.6% Iowa 14,281 0.2% Kansas 1,809 0.0% Kentucky 520 0.0% Louisiana 12,147 0.2% Maine 1,296 0.0% Maryland 63,077 1.1% Massachusetts 157,415 2.6% Michigan 4,210 0.1% Minnesota

  15. FY 2013 Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance...

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

    Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting Requirement FY 2013 Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting Requirement FY 2013 DARM ...

  16. FY 2012 Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance...

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

    Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting Requirement FY 2012 Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting Requirement FY 2012 DARM ...

  17. Table 13. Coal Production, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Coal Production, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (million short tons)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",999,1021,1041,1051,1056,1066,1073,1081,1087,1098,1107,1122,1121,1128,1143,1173,1201,1223 "AEO 1995",,1006,1010,1011,1016,1017,1021,1027,1033,1040,1051,1066,1076,1083,1090,1108,1122,1137 "AEO

  18. Table 22. Energy Intensity, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Energy Intensity, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (quadrillion Btu / $Billion 2005 Chained GDP)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",10.89145253,10.73335719,10.63428655,10.48440125,10.33479508,10.20669515,10.06546105,9.94541493,9.822393757,9.707148466,9.595465524,9.499032573,9.390723436,9.29474735,9.185496812,9.096176848,9.007677565,8.928276581 "AEO

  19. "Table 18. Total Delivered Commercial Energy Consumption, Projected...

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

    Total Delivered Commercial Energy Consumption, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (quadrillion Btu)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,20...

  20. Table 17. Total Delivered Residential Energy Consumption, Projected...

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

    Total Delivered Residential Energy Consumption, Projected vs. Actual Projected (quadrillion Btu) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ...

  1. "Table 17. Total Delivered Residential Energy Consumption, Projected...

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

    Total Delivered Residential Energy Consumption, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (quadrillion Btu)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2...

  2. Caustic-Side Solvent Extraction: Prediction of Cesium Extraction for Actual Wastes and Actual Waste Simulants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Delmau, L.H.; Haverlock, T.J.; Sloop, F.V., Jr.; Moyer, B.A.

    2003-02-01

    This report presents the work that followed the CSSX model development completed in FY2002. The developed cesium and potassium extraction model was based on extraction data obtained from simple aqueous media. It was tested to ensure the validity of the prediction for the cesium extraction from actual waste. Compositions of the actual tank waste were obtained from the Savannah River Site personnel and were used to prepare defined simulants and to predict cesium distribution ratios using the model. It was therefore possible to compare the cesium distribution ratios obtained from the actual waste, the simulant, and the predicted values. It was determined that the predicted values agree with the measured values for the simulants. Predicted values also agreed, with three exceptions, with measured values for the tank wastes. Discrepancies were attributed in part to the uncertainty in the cation/anion balance in the actual waste composition, but likely more so to the uncertainty in the potassium concentration in the waste, given the demonstrated large competing effect of this metal on cesium extraction. It was demonstrated that the upper limit for the potassium concentration in the feed ought to not exceed 0.05 M in order to maintain suitable cesium distribution ratios.

  3. FY 2012 Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting

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

    Requirement | Department of Energy Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting Requirement FY 2012 Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting Requirement FY 2012 DARM Transmittal Letter and Attachment Final.pdf (406.93 KB) More Documents & Publications FY 2013 Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting Requirement Real Property Maintenance Reporting Requirement Memorandum (July 13, 2010)

  4. FY 2013 Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting

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

    Requirement | Department of Energy Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting Requirement FY 2013 Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting Requirement FY 2013 DARM Transmittal Letter and Attachment Final.pdf (541.36 KB) More Documents & Publications FY 2012 Real Property Deferred, Actual, and Required Maintenance Reporting Requirement FY_09_DM_RM_AM_Reporting_Memo_and_attachment_072009.pdf Real Property Maintenance Reporting Requirement

  5. ,"Table 2a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected...

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

    Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2008 and Projected 2009 through 2013 " ,"(Megawatts and 2008 ...

  6. ,"Table 2a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected...

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

    Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2009 and Projected 2010 through 2014 " ,"(Megawatts and 2009 ...

  7. ,"Table 2a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected...

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

    a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2006 and Projected 2007 through 2011 " ,"(Megawatts and 2006 ...

  8. ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected...

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

    b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2007 and Projected 2008 through 2012 " ,"(Megawatts and 2007 ...

  9. ,"Table 2a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected...

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

    a. Noncoincident Summer Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2007 and Projected 2008 through 2012 " ,"(Megawatts and 2007 ...

  10. ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected...

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

    b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2006 and Projected 2007 through 2011 " ,"(Megawatts and 2006 ...

  11. ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected...

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

    Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Council Region, " ,"2005 and Projected 2006 through 2010 " ,"(Megawatts and 2005 Base ...

  12. ,"Table 2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected...

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

    2b. Noncoincident Winter Peak Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2009 and Projected 2010 through 2014 " ,"(Megawatts and 2009 ...

  13. Table 14a. Average Electricity Prices, Projected vs. Actual

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

    a. Average Electricity Prices, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected Price in Constant Dollars" " (constant dollars, cents per kilowatt-hour in ""dollar year"" specific to each AEO)" ...

  14. Barge Truck Total

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

    Barge Truck Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over total shipments Total delivered cost per short ton Shipments with transportation rates over...

  15. Table 21. Total Energy Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Projected...

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

    Total Energy Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Projected vs. Actual Projected (million metric tons) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ...

  16. "Table 21. Total Energy Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Projected...

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

    Total Energy Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (million metric tons)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,200...

  17. Table 5. Domestic Crude Oil Production, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Domestic Crude Oil Production, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (million barrels)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,201...

  18. Table 9. Natural Gas Production, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Natural Gas Production, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (trillion cubic feet)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2...

  19. Table 10. Natural Gas Net Imports, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Natural Gas Net Imports, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (trillion cubic feet)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,...

  20. "Table 7b. Natural Gas Price, Electric Power Sector, Actual...

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

    b. Natural Gas Price, Electric Power Sector, Actual vs. Projected" "Projected Price in Nominal Dollars" " (nominal dollars per million Btu)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,200...

  1. Table 14b. Average Electricity Prices, Projected vs. Actual

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

    b. Average Electricity Prices, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected Price in Nominal Dollars" " (nominal dollars, cents per kilowatt-hour)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,200...

  2. Table 14b. Average Electricity Prices, Projected vs. Actual

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

    b. Average Electricity Prices, Projected vs. Actual Projected Price in Nominal Dollars (nominal dollars, cents per kilowatt-hour) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ...

  3. ,"Total Natural Gas Consumption

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

    Gas Consumption (billion cubic feet)",,,,,"Natural Gas Energy Intensity (cubic feetsquare foot)" ,"Total ","Space Heating","Water Heating","Cook- ing","Other","Total ","Space...

  4. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration...

  5. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

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

    A. Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region for All Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per Gallon",,,,"per...

  6. ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption

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

    A. Fuel Oil Consumption (gallons) and Energy Intensities by End Use for All Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption (million gallons)",,,,,"Fuel Oil Energy Intensity...

  7. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Revised: December, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings...

  8. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other All Buildings*...

  9. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

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

    . Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per...

  10. ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption

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

    0. Fuel Oil Consumption (gallons) and Energy Intensities by End Use for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Fuel Oil Consumption (million gallons)",,,,,"Fuel Oil Energy Intensity...

  11. ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures

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

    4. Fuel Oil Expenditures by Census Region, 1999" ,"Total Fuel Oil Expenditures (million dollars)",,,,"Fuel Oil Expenditures (dollars)" ,,,,,"per Gallon",,,,"per Square Foot"...

  12. Parallel Total Energy

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-10-21

    This is a total energy electronic structure code using Local Density Approximation (LDA) of the density funtional theory. It uses the plane wave as the wave function basis set. It can sue both the norm conserving pseudopotentials and the ultra soft pseudopotentials. It can relax the atomic positions according to the total energy. It is a parallel code using MP1.

  13. Table 6. Petroleum Net Imports, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Petroleum Net Imports, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected" " (million barrels)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",2934.6,3201.05,3361.65,3504,3657.3,3737.6,3879.95,3993.1,4098.95,4212.1,4303.35,4398.25,4474.9,4540.6,4584.4,4639.15,4668.35,4672 "AEO

  14. FRACTIONAL CRYSTALLIZATION FLOWSHEET TESTS WITH ACTUAL TANK WASTE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    HERTING, D.L.

    2007-04-13

    Laboratory-scale flowsheet tests of the fractional crystallization process were conducted with actual tank waste samples in a hot cell at the 2224 Laboratory. The process is designed to separate medium-curie liquid waste into a low-curie stream for feeding to supplemental treatment and a high-curie stream for double-shell tank storage. Separations criteria (for Cesium-137 sulfate and sodium) were exceeded in all three of the flowsheet tests that were performed.

  15. FRACTIONAL CRYSTALLIZATION FLOWSHEET TESTS WITH ACTUAL TANK WASTE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    HERTING, D.L.

    2006-10-18

    Laboratory-scale flowsheet tests of the fractional crystallization process were conducted with actual tank waste samples in a hot cell at the 222-S Laboratory. The process is designed to separate medium-curie liquid waste into a low-curie stream for feeding to supplemental treatment and a high-curie stream for double-shell tank storage. Separations criteria (for Cs-137 sulfate, and sodium) were exceeded in all three of the flowsheet tests that were performed.

  16. U.S. Total Exports

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Total to Chile Sabine Pass, LA Total to China Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Egypt ... Sabine Pass, LA Total to Russia Total to South Korea Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total ...

  17. Summary Max Total Units

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

    Summary Max Total Units *If All Splits, No Rack Units **If Only FW, AC Splits 1000 52 28 28 2000 87 59 35 3000 61 33 15 4000 61 33 15 Totals 261 153 93 ***Costs $1,957,500.00 $1,147,500.00 $697,500.00 Notes: added several refrigerants removed bins from analysis removed R-22 from list 1000lb, no Glycol, CO2 or ammonia Seawater R-404A only * includes seawater units ** no seawater units included *** Costs = (total units) X (estimate of $7500 per unit) 1000lb, air cooled split systems, fresh water

  18. Total Space Heat-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heat- ing Cool- ing Venti- lation Water Heat- ing Light- ing Cook- ing Refrig- eration Office Equip- ment Com- puters Other...

  19. ARM - Measurement - Total carbon

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

    carbon 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 Measurement : Total carbon The total concentration of carbon in all its organic and non-organic forms. Categories Atmospheric Carbon, Aerosols Instruments The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers of each instrument for a list of all available measurements, including

  20. Table 13. Coal Production, Projected vs. Actual Projected

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

    Coal Production, Projected vs. Actual Projected (million short tons) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 999 1021 1041 1051 1056 1066 1073 1081 1087 1098 1107 1122 1121 1128 1143 1173 1201 1223 AEO 1995 1006 1010 1011 1016 1017 1021 1027 1033 1040 1051 1066 1076 1083 1090 1108 1122 1137 AEO 1996 1037 1044 1041 1045 1061 1070 1086 1100 1112 1121 1135 1156 1161 1167 1173 1184 1190 1203 1215 AEO 1997 1028 1052 1072 1088

  1. Table 5. Domestic Crude Oil Production, Projected vs. Actual

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

    Domestic Crude Oil Production, Projected vs. Actual Projected (million barrels) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 2508 2373 2256 2161 2088 2022 1953 1891 1851 1825 1799 1781 1767 1759 1778 1789 1807 1862 AEO 1995 2402 2307 2205 2095 2037 1967 1953 1924 1916 1905 1894 1883 1887 1887 1920 1945 1967 AEO 1996 2387 2310 2248 2172 2113 2062 2011 1978 1953 1938 1916 1920 1927 1949 1971 1986 2000 2018 2055 AEO 1997 2362 2307

  2. Table 6. Petroleum Net Imports, Projected vs. Actual Projected

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

    Petroleum Net Imports, Projected vs. Actual Projected (million barrels) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 2935 3201 3362 3504 3657 3738 3880 3993 4099 4212 4303 4398 4475 4541 4584 4639 4668 4672 AEO 1995 2953 3157 3281 3489 3610 3741 3818 3920 4000 4103 4208 4303 4362 4420 4442 4460 4460 AEO 1996 3011 3106 3219 3398 3519 3679 3807 3891 3979 4070 4165 4212 4260 4289 4303 4322 4325 4347 4344 AEO 1997 3099 3245 3497

  3. CCP_FinalActual_2011_11_06.xlsx

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

    15 TROJAN DECOMMISSIONING (26,485) 1,500 (27,985) 16 WNP-1&3 DECOMMISSIONING 607 448 159 17 Sub-Total (25,878) 1,948 (27,826) 18 Gross Contracted Power...

  4. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    76 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 27 24 86 134 65 24 192 171 1189 423 PAY PLAN SES 96 EX 4 EJ/EK 60 EN 05 39 EN 04 159 EN 03 21 EN 00 8 NN (Engineering) 398 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 1165 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 54 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 325 GS 15 3 GS 14 1 GS 13 1 GS 10 1 Total includes 2318 permanent and 17 temporary employees. DIVERSITY 2335 1559 66.8% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 33.2% National

  5. Table 10. Natural Gas Net Imports, Projected vs. Actual Projected

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

    Natural Gas Net Imports, Projected vs. Actual Projected (trillion cubic feet) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 2.02 2.40 2.66 2.74 2.81 2.85 2.89 2.93 2.95 2.97 3.00 3.16 3.31 3.50 3.57 3.63 3.74 3.85 AEO 1995 2.46 2.54 2.80 2.87 2.87 2.89 2.90 2.90 2.92 2.95 2.97 3.00 3.03 3.19 3.35 3.51 3.60 AEO 1996 2.56 2.75 2.85 2.88 2.93 2.98 3.02 3.06 3.07 3.09 3.12 3.17 3.23 3.29 3.37 3.46 3.56 3.68 3.79 AEO 1997 2.82 2.96

  6. Table 14a. Average Electricity Prices, Projected vs. Actual

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

    a. Average Electricity Prices, Projected vs. Actual Projected Price in Constant Dollars (constant dollars, cents per kilowatt-hour in "dollar year" specific to each AEO) AEO $ Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 1992 6.80 6.80 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 7.00 7.00 7.10 7.10 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.30 7.30 7.40 7.50 7.60 AEO 1995 1993 6.80 6.80 6.70 6.70 6.70 6.70 6.70 6.80 6.80 6.90 6.90 6.90 7.00 7.00 7.10 7.10 7.20

  7. Table 22. Energy Intensity, Projected vs. Actual Projected

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

    Energy Intensity, Projected vs. Actual Projected (quadrillion Btu / $Billion 2005 Chained GDP) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 10.9 10.7 10.6 10.5 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9 AEO 1995 10.5 10.4 10.3 10.1 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.7 AEO 1996 10.4 10.3 10.1 10.0 9.8 9.7 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.5 AEO 1997 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.4

  8. Table 9. Natural Gas Production, Projected vs. Actual Projected

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

    Natural Gas Production, Projected vs. Actual Projected (trillion cubic feet) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 17.71 17.68 17.84 18.12 18.25 18.43 18.58 18.93 19.28 19.51 19.80 19.92 20.13 20.18 20.38 20.35 20.16 20.19 AEO 1995 18.28 17.98 17.92 18.21 18.63 18.92 19.08 19.20 19.36 19.52 19.75 19.94 20.17 20.28 20.60 20.59 20.88 AEO 1996 18.90 19.15 19.52 19.59 19.59 19.65 19.73 19.97 20.36 20.82 21.25 21.37 21.68

  9. Determination of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Using Total Carbon Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ekechukwu, A.A.

    2002-05-10

    Several methods have been proposed to replace the Freon(TM)-extraction method to determine total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content. For reasons of cost, sensitivity, precision, or simplicity, none of the replacement methods are feasible for analysis of radioactive samples at our facility. We have developed a method to measure total petroleum hydrocarbon content in aqueous sample matrixes using total organic carbon (total carbon) determination. The total carbon content (TC1) of the sample is measured using a total organic carbon analyzer. The sample is then contacted with a small volume of non-pokar solvent to extract the total petroleum hydrocarbons. The total carbon content of the resultant aqueous phase of the extracted sample (TC2) is measured. Total petroleum hydrocarbon content is calculated (TPH = TC1-TC2). The resultant data are consistent with results obtained using Freon(TM) extraction followed by infrared absorbance.

  10. U.S. Total Exports

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

    Barbados Total To Brazil Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total to Canada Eastport, ID Calais, ME Detroit, MI Marysville, MI Port Huron, MI Crosby, ND Portal, ND Sault St. Marie, MI St. Clair, MI Noyes, MN Warroad, MN Babb, MT Havre, MT Port of Morgan, MT Sherwood, ND Pittsburg, NH Buffalo, NY Grand Island, NY Massena, NY Niagara Falls, NY Waddington, NY Sumas, WA Sweetgrass, MT Total to Chile Sabine Pass, LA Total to China Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Egypt Freeport, TX Total to India

  11. Total Eolica | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Eolica Jump to: navigation, search Name: Total Eolica Place: Spain Product: Project developer References: Total Eolica1 This article is a stub. You can help OpenEI by expanding...

  12. Total..............................................

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

    111.1 86.6 2,720 1,970 1,310 1,941 1,475 821 1,059 944 554 Census Region and Division Northeast.................................... 20.6 13.9 3,224 2,173 836 2,219 1,619 583 903 830 Q New England.......................... 5.5 3.6 3,365 2,154 313 2,634 1,826 Q 951 940 Q Middle Atlantic........................ 15.1 10.3 3,167 2,181 1,049 2,188 1,603 582 Q Q Q Midwest...................................... 25.6 21.0 2,823 2,239 1,624 2,356 1,669 1,336 1,081 961 778 East North

  13. Total............................................................

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

  14. Total..............................................................

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

    ,171 1,618 1,031 845 630 401 Census Region and Division Northeast................................................... 20.6 2,334 1,664 562 911 649 220 New England.......................................... 5.5 2,472 1,680 265 1,057 719 113 Middle Atlantic........................................ 15.1 2,284 1,658 670 864 627 254 Midwest...................................................... 25.6 2,421 1,927 1,360 981 781 551 East North Central.................................. 17.7 2,483 1,926 1,269

  15. Total...............................................................

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

    20.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 6.9 8.1 14.2 6.4 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 13.7 17.5 26.6 17.8 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 9.3 11.9 18.2 11.0 2.......................................................... 16.2 2.9 3.5 5.5 4.4 3 or More............................................. 9.0 1.5 2.1 2.9 2.5 Number of Laptop PCs

  16. Total...............................................................

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

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 14.2 7.2 2.8 4.2 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 26.6 14.5 4.1 7.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 18.2 10.0 2.9 5.3 2.......................................................... 16.2 5.5 3.0 0.7 1.8 3 or More............................................. 9.0 2.9 1.5 0.5 0.8 Number of Laptop PCs

  17. Total...............................................................

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

    26.7 28.8 20.6 13.1 22.0 16.6 38.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 17.1 10.8 4.2 1.8 1.6 10.3 20.6 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 9.6 18.0 16.4 11.3 20.3 6.4 17.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 8.3 14.2 11.4 7.2 9.2 5.3 14.2 2.......................................................... 16.2 0.9 2.6 3.7 2.9 6.2 0.8 2.6 3 or More............................................. 9.0 0.4 1.2

  18. Total...............................................................

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

    47.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ........... 35.5 16.9 6.5 4.6 7.6 Use a Personal Computer......................... 75.6 30.3 12.5 18.1 14.7 Number of Desktop PCs 1.......................................................... 50.3 21.1 8.3 10.7 10.1 2.......................................................... 16.2 6.2 2.8 4.1 3.0 3 or More............................................. 9.0 2.9 1.4 3.2 1.6 Number of Laptop PCs

  19. Total.................................................................

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

    49.2 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................... 93.3 31.3 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Use Cooling Equipment................................ 91.4 30.4 14.6 15.4 11.1 6.9 5.2 7.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............... 1.9 1.0 0.5 Q Q Q Q Q Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................... 17.8 17.8 N N N N N N Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................. 65.9 3.9 15.1 15.6 11.1 7.0 5.2 8.0 Without a Heat

  20. Total.................................................................

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

    14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment........ 1.2 N Q Q 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment........... 109.8 14.7 7.4 12.4 12.2 18.5 18.3 17.1 9.2 Use Main Space Heating Equipment............. 109.1 14.6 7.3 12.4 12.2 18.2 18.2 17.1 9.1 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It............... 0.8 Q Q Q Q 0.3 Q N Q Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas................................................... 58.2 9.2 4.9 7.8 7.1 8.8 8.4 7.8 4.2 Central

  1. Total..................................................................

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

    . 111.1 14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment..................... 17.8 3.9 1.8 2.2 2.1 3.1 2.6 1.7 0.4 Have Cooling Equipment................................. 93.3 10.8 5.6 10.3 10.4 15.8 16.0 15.6 8.8 Use Cooling Equipment.................................. 91.4 10.6 5.5 10.3 10.3 15.3 15.7 15.3 8.6 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................. 1.9 Q Q Q Q 0.6 0.4 0.3 Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central

  2. Total...................................................................

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

    15.2 7.8 1.0 1.2 3.3 1.9 For Two Housing Units............................. 0.9 Q N Q 0.6 N Heat Pump.................................................. 9.2 7.4 0.3 Q 0.7 0.5 Portable Electric Heater............................... 1.6 0.8 Q Q Q 0.3 Other Equipment......................................... 1.9 0.7 Q Q 0.7 Q Fuel Oil........................................................... 7.7 5.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.2 Steam or Hot Water System........................ 4.7 2.9 Q 0.7 0.8 N For One Housing

  3. Total...................................................................

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

    Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System............................................... 65.9 47.5 4.0 2.8 7.9 3.7 Without a Heat Pump.................................. 53.5 37.8 3.4 2.2 7.0 3.1 With a Heat Pump....................................... 12.3 9.7 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.6 Window/Wall Units.......................................... 28.9 14.9 2.3 3.5 6.0 2.1 1 Unit........................................................... 14.5 6.6 1.0 1.6 4.2 1.2 2

  4. Total.......................................................................

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

    0.6 15.1 5.5 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 6.9 5.3 1.6 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 13.7 9.8 3.9 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 9.3 6.8 2.5 2.................................................................. 16.2 2.9 1.9 1.0 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 1.5 1.1 0.4 Number of Laptop PCs

  5. Total.......................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 8.1 5.6 2.5 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 17.5 12.1 5.4 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 11.9 8.4 3.4 2.................................................................. 16.2 3.5 2.2 1.3 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 2.1 1.5 0.6 Number of Laptop PCs

  6. Total.......................................................................

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

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer ................... 35.5 6.4 2.2 4.2 Use a Personal Computer................................ 75.6 17.8 5.3 12.5 Number of Desktop PCs 1.................................................................. 50.3 11.0 3.4 7.6 2.................................................................. 16.2 4.4 1.3 3.1 3 or More..................................................... 9.0 2.5 0.7 1.8 Number of Laptop PCs

  7. Total........................................................................

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

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q 0.7 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 20.5 25.6 40.3 23.4 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 20.5 25.6 40.1 22.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N Q 0.6 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 11.4 18.4 13.6 14.7 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 6.1

  8. Total........................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q N Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 25.6 17.7 7.9 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 25.6 17.7 7.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 18.4 13.1 5.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 16.2 11.6 4.7 For One Housing

  9. Total........................................................................

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

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q N Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 40.3 21.4 6.9 12.0 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 40.1 21.2 6.9 12.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 Q Q N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 13.6 5.6 2.3 5.7 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 11.0 4.4

  10. Total........................................................................

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

    7.1 7.0 8.0 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 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 1.8 Q 3.1 6.0

  11. Total...........................................................................

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

    0.6 15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 4.0 2.4 1.7 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 16.5 12.8 3.8 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 16.3 12.6 3.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 0.3 Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 6.0 5.2 0.8 Without a Heat

  12. Total...........................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 2.1 1.8 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 23.5 16.0 7.5 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 23.4 15.9 7.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 Q Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 17.3 11.3 6.0 Without a Heat

  13. Total...........................................................................

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

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................. 17.8 10.3 3.1 7.3 Have Cooling Equipment.......................................... 93.3 13.9 4.5 9.4 Use Cooling Equipment........................................... 91.4 12.9 4.3 8.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it.......................... 1.9 1.0 Q 0.8 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 10.5 3.9 6.5 Without a Heat

  14. Total.............................................................................

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

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 4.0 2.1 1.4 10.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 16.5 23.5 39.3 13.9 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 16.3 23.4 38.9 12.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.3 Q 0.5 1.0 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 6.0 17.3 32.1 10.5 Without a Heat

  15. Total.............................................................................

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

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 1.2 1.0 0.2 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 4.0 2.7 1.2 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 7.9 5.4 2.5 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 6.0 4.8 1.2 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.6 0.5 Q Less Than Once a

  16. Total.............................................................................

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

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 1.4 1.0 0.4 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 5.8 3.5 2.3 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 10.7 7.8 2.9 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 5.6 4.0 1.6 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 Less Than Once a

  17. Total.............................................................................

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

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 2.1 1.8 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 23.5 16.0 7.5 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 23.4 15.9 7.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 Q Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 17.3 11.3 6.0 Without a Heat

  18. Total.............................................................................

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

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 39.3 20.9 6.7 11.8 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 38.9 20.7 6.6 11.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.5 Q Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 32.1 17.6 5.2 9.3 Without a Heat

  19. Total.............................................................................

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

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day......................................... 8.2 2.6 0.7 1.9 2 Times A Day...................................................... 24.6 6.6 2.0 4.6 Once a Day........................................................... 42.3 8.8 2.9 5.8 A Few Times Each Week...................................... 27.2 4.7 1.5 3.1 About Once a Week.............................................. 3.9 0.7 Q 0.6 Less Than Once a

  20. Total.............................................................................

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

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 10.3 3.1 7.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 13.9 4.5 9.4 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 12.9 4.3 8.5 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 1.0 Q 0.8 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 10.5 3.9 6.5 Without a Heat

  1. Total.............................................................................

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

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment............................... 17.8 8.5 2.7 2.6 4.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................................ 93.3 38.6 16.2 20.1 18.4 Use Cooling Equipment............................................. 91.4 37.8 15.9 19.8 18.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................ 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................ 65.9 25.8 10.9 16.6 12.5 Without a Heat

  2. Total..............................................................................

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

    20.6 25.6 40.7 24.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 4.0 2.1 1.4 10.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 16.5 23.5 39.3 13.9 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 16.3 23.4 38.9 12.9 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.3 Q 0.5 1.0 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 6.0 17.3 32.1 10.5

  3. Total..............................................................................

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

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 39.3 20.9 6.7 11.8 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 38.9 20.7 6.6 11.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.5 Q Q Q Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 32.1 17.6 5.2 9.3 Without a

  4. Total..............................................................................

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

    111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer .......................... 35.5 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.1 Use a Personal Computer....................................... 75.6 4.2 5.0 5.3 9.0 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 0.3

  5. Total..............................................................................

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

    7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................ 17.8 8.5 2.7 2.6 4.0 Have Cooling Equipment............................................. 93.3 38.6 16.2 20.1 18.4 Use Cooling Equipment.............................................. 91.4 37.8 15.9 19.8 18.0 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................. 1.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System........................................................... 65.9 25.8 10.9 16.6 12.5

  6. Total....................................................................................

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

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 6.9 8.1 14.2 6.4 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 13.7 17.5 26.6 17.8 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 10.4 14.1 20.5 13.7 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 3.3 3.4 6.1 4.1 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  7. Total....................................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 8.1 5.6 2.5 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 17.5 12.1 5.4 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 14.1 10.0 4.0 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 3.4 2.1 1.3 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  8. Total....................................................................................

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

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day................................................. 8.2 3.0 1.6 0.3 1.1 2 Times A Day.............................................................. 24.6 8.3 4.2 1.3 2.7 Once a Day................................................................... 42.3 15.0 8.1 2.7 4.2 A Few Times Each Week............................................. 27.2 10.9 6.0 1.8 3.1 About Once a Week..................................................... 3.9

  9. Total....................................................................................

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

    Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 14.2 7.2 2.8 4.2 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 26.6 14.5 4.1 7.9 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 20.5 11.0 3.4 6.1 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 6.1 3.5 0.7 1.9 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  10. Total....................................................................................

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

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 6.4 2.2 4.2 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 17.8 5.3 12.5 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 13.7 4.2 9.5 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 4.1 1.1 3.0 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  11. Total....................................................................................

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

    Cooking Appliances Frequency of Hot Meals Cooked 3 or More Times A Day................................................. 8.2 3.7 1.6 1.4 1.5 2 Times A Day.............................................................. 24.6 10.8 4.1 4.3 5.5 Once a Day................................................................... 42.3 17.0 7.2 8.7 9.3 A Few Times Each Week............................................. 27.2 11.4 4.7 6.4 4.8 About Once a Week.....................................................

  12. Total....................................................................................

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

    111.1 47.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer.................................. 35.5 16.9 6.5 4.6 7.6 Use a Personal Computer.............................................. 75.6 30.3 12.5 18.1 14.7 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model......................................................... 58.6 22.9 9.8 14.1 11.9 Laptop Model............................................................. 16.9 7.4 2.7 4.0 2.9 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2

  13. Total.........................................................................................

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

    ..... 111.1 7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Personal Computers Do Not Use a Personal Computer...................................... 35.5 3.0 2.0 2.7 3.1 Use a Personal Computer.................................................. 75.6 4.2 5.0 5.3 9.0 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model............................................................. 58.6 3.2 3.9 4.0 6.7 Laptop Model................................................................. 16.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 2.4 Hours Turned on Per Week Less

  14. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Basements Basement in Single-Family Homes and Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings ... Attics Attic in Single-Family Homes and Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings ...

  15. Total

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

    ... Climate region 3 Very coldCold 31,898 30,469 28,057 28,228 21,019 30,542 25,067 Mixed-humid 27,873 26,716 24,044 26,365 21,026 27,096 22,812 Mixed-dryHot-dry 12,037 10,484 7,628 ...

  16. Total..........................................................

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

    Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System......Central Air-Conditioning...... 65.9 1.1 6.4 6.4 ...

  17. Total..........................................................

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

    Income Relative to Poverty Line Below 100 Percent......1.3 1.2 0.8 0.4 1. Below 150 percent of poverty line or 60 percent of median State ...

  18. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More 60,000 to 79,999 ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More 60,000 to 79,999 ...

  19. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Table HC7.4 Space Heating Characteristics by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 80,000 or More Space Heating ...

  20. Total..........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... Table HC7.7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Table HC7.7 Air-Conditioning Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ...

  1. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Living Space Characteristics Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 Million ... Living Space Characteristics Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 Million ...

  2. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Table HC7.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty ... Table HC7.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty ...

  3. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Table HC7.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by Household Income, 2005 Below Poverty Line ... Below Poverty Line Eligible for Federal Assistance 1 40,000 to 59,999 60,000 to 79,999 ...

  4. Total

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

    1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.9 786 56 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.2 965 62 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 16.0 994 65 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.9 1,052 72 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 69.9 1,127 80 100,001 to 200,000 90 12,415 11,310 137.9 1,098 89 200,001 to 500,000 38 10,724 10,356 284.2 1,035 99 Over 500,000 8 7,074 9,196 885.0 769 117 Principal building activity Education 389 12,239 10,885 31.5 1,124 53 Food sales 177 1,252 1,172 7.1 1,067 121 Food

  5. Total

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

    1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.9 786 56 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.2 965 62 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 16.0 994 65 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.9 1,052 72 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 69.9 1,127 80 100,001 to 200,000 90 12,415 11,310 137.9 1,098 89 200,001 to 500,000 38 10,724 10,356 284.2 1,035 99 Over 500,000 8 7,074 9,196 885.0 769 117 Principal building activity Education 389 12,239 10,885 31.5 1,124 53 Food sales 177 1,252 1,172 7.1 1,067 121 Food

  6. Total

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

    1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.9 786 56 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.2 965 62 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 16.0 994 65 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.9 1,052 72 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 69.9 1,127 80 100,001 to 200,000 90 12,415 11,310 137.9 1,098 89 200,001 to 500,000 38 10,724 10,356 284.2 1,035 99 Over 500,000 8 7,074 9,196 885.0 769 117 Principal building activity Education 389 12,239 10,885 31.5 1,124 53 Food sales 177 1,252 1,172 7.1 1,067 121 Food

  7. Total

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

    Median square feet per building (thousand) Median square feet per worker Median operating hours per week Median age of buildings (years) All buildings 5,557 87,093 88,182 5.0 1,029 50 32 Building floorspace (square feet) 1,001 to 5,000 2,777 8,041 10,232 2.8 821 49 37 5,001 to 10,000 1,229 8,900 9,225 7.0 1,167 50 31 10,001 to 25,000 884 14,105 14,189 15.0 1,444 56 32 25,001 to 50,000 332 11,917 11,327 35.0 1,461 60 29 50,001 to 100,000 199 13,918 12,345 67.0 1,442 60 26 100,001 to 200,000 90

  8. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Type of Renter-Occupied Housing Unit Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units ... At Home Behavior Home Used for Business Yes......

  9. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit U.S. Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units ... At Home Behavior Home Used for Business Yes......

  10. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Housing Characteristics Tables Single-Family Units Detached Type of Housing Unit Table ... At Home Behavior Home Used for Business Yes......

  11. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) Living Space ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) Living Space ...

  12. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) City Town Suburbs Rural ... Housing Units (millions) UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) City Town Suburbs Rural ...

  13. Total..........................................................

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

    ... 41.8 2,603 2,199 1,654 941 795 598 1-Car Garage...... 9.5 2,064 1,664 1,039 775 624 390 2-Car Garage......

  14. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Average Square Feet per Apartment in a -- Apartments (millions) Major Outside Wall Construction Siding (Aluminum, Vinyl, Steel)...... 35.3 3.5 1,286 1,090 325 852 786 461 ...

  15. Total..........................................................

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

    Living Space Characteristics Detached Attached Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Table HC3.2 ...

  16. Total..........................................................

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Table HC4.2 Living Space Characteristics by Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2005 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy ...

  17. Total..........................................................

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

    ... Per Household Member Average Square Feet Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Table HC1.2.2 ...

  18. Total..........................................................

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

    ... 111.1 20.6 15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment...... 17.8 4.0 2.4 1.7 Have Cooling Equipment...... 93.3 ...

  19. ,"Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North...

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

    Jaunary 2010" ,"Next Update: October 2010" ,"Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2008 and Projected ...

  20. ,"Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North...

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

    . Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2009 and Projected 2010 through 2014" ,"(Thousands of Megawatthours and ...

  1. ,"Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North...

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

    1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2006 and Projected 2008 through 2012 " ,"(Thousands of Megawatthours and ...

  2. ,"Table 1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North...

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

    1. Net Energy For Load, Actual and Projected by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, " ,"2006 and Projected 2007 through 2011 " ,"(Thousands of Megawatthours and ...

  3. BENCH-SCALE STEAM REFORMING OF ACTUAL TANK 48H WASTE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Burket, P; Gene Daniel, G; Charles Nash, C; Carol Jantzen, C; Michael Williams, M

    2008-09-25

    Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) has been demonstrated to be a viable technology to remove >99% of the organics from Tank 48H simulant, to remove >99% of the nitrate/nitrite from Tank 48H simulant, and to form a solid product that is primarily carbonate based. The technology was demonstrated in October of 2006 in the Engineering Scale Test Demonstration Fluidized Bed Steam Reformer1 (ESTD FBSR) at the Hazen Research Inc. (HRI) facility in Golden, CO. The purpose of the Bench-scale Steam Reformer (BSR) testing was to demonstrate that the same reactions occur and the same product is formed when steam reforming actual radioactive Tank 48H waste. The approach used in the current study was to test the BSR with the same Tank 48H simulant and same Erwin coal as was used at the ESTD FBSR under the same operating conditions. This comparison would allow verification that the same chemical reactions occur in both the BSR and ESTD FBSR. Then, actual radioactive Tank 48H material would be steam reformed in the BSR to verify that the actual tank 48H sample reacts the same way chemically as the simulant Tank 48H material. The conclusions from the BSR study and comparison to the ESTD FBSR are the following: (1) A Bench-scale Steam Reforming (BSR) unit was successfully designed and built that: (a) Emulated the chemistry of the ESTD FBSR Denitration Mineralization Reformer (DMR) and Carbon Reduction Reformer (CRR) known collectively as the dual reformer flowsheet. (b) Measured and controlled the off-gas stream. (c) Processed real (radioactive) Tank 48H waste. (d) Met the standards and specifications for radiological testing in the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) Shielded Cells Facility (SCF). (2) Three runs with radioactive Tank 48H material were performed. (3) The Tetraphenylborate (TPB) was destroyed to > 99% for all radioactive Bench-scale tests. (4) The feed nitrate/nitrite was destroyed to >99% for all radioactive BSR tests the same as the ESTD FBSR. (5) The

  4. Characteristics RSE Column Factor: Total

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

    and 1994 Vehicle Characteristics RSE Column Factor: Total 1993 Family Income Below Poverty Line Eli- gible for Fed- eral Assist- ance 1 RSE Row Factor: Less than 5,000 5,000...

  5. ARM - Measurement - Total cloud water

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

    cloud water 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 Measurement : Total cloud water The total concentration (mass/vol) of ice and liquid water particles in a cloud; this includes condensed water content (CWC). Categories Cloud Properties Instruments The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers of each instrument for a

  6. Making appropriate comparisons of estimated and actual costs of reducing SO{sub 2} emissions under Title IV

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, A.E.

    1998-12-31

    A current sentiment within some parts of the environmental policy community is that market-based regulatory approaches such as emissions trading have proven so effective that actual costs will be only a small fraction of what ex ante cost estimation procedures would project. With this line of reasoning, some have dismissed available cost estimates for major proposed new regulations, such as the new PM and ozone NAAQS, as not meaningful for policy decisions. The most commonly used evidence in support of this position is the experience with SO{sub 2} reductions under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. In Title IV, a market for emissions allowances has been used to achieve reductions in sulfur dioxides (SO{sub 2}) to ameliorate acid rain. It is commonly asserted today that the cost of achieving the SO{sub 2} emissions reductions has been only one-tenth or less of what Title IV was originally expected to cost. This paper demonstrates that, to the contrary, actual costs for SO{sub 2} reductions remain roughly in line with original estimates associated with Title IV. Erroneous conclusions about Title IV`s costs are due to inappropriate comparisons of a variety of different measures that appear to be comparable only because they are all stated in dollars per ton. Program cost estimates include the total costs of a fully-implemented regulatory program. The very low costs of Title IV that are commonly cited today are neither directly reflective of a fully implemented Title IV, (which is still many years away) nor reflective of all the costs already incurred. Further, a careful review of history finds that the initial cost estimates that many cite were never associated with Title IV. Technically speaking, people are comparing the estimated control costs for the most-costly power plant associated with earlier acid rain regulatory proposals with prices from a market that do not directly reflect total costs.

  7. CATEGORY Total Procurement Total Small Business Small Disadvantaged

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    CATEGORY Total Procurement Total Small Business Small Disadvantaged Business Woman Owned Small Business HubZone Small Business Veteran-Owned Small Business Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business FY 2013 Dollars Accomplished $1,049,087,940 $562,676,028 $136,485,766 $106,515,229 $12,080,258 $63,473,852 $28,080,960 FY 2013 % Accomplishment 54.40% 13.00% 10.20% 1.20% 6.60% 2.70% FY 2014 Dollars Accomplished $868,961,755 $443,711,175 $92,478,522 $88,633,031 $29,867,820 $43,719,452 $26,826,374

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    0 New Hampshire - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle ...

  9. Total Number of Operable Refineries

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

    Data Series: Total Number of Operable Refineries Number of Operating Refineries Number of Idle Refineries Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/CD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operating Capacity (B/SD) Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Idle Capacity (B/SD) Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge

  10. Total Estimated Contract Cost: Performance Period Total Fee Paid

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Performance Period Total Fee Paid FY2008 $134,832 FY2009 $142,578 FY2010 $299,878 FY2011 $169,878 Cumulative Fee Paid $747,166 Contract Period: September 2007 - October 2012 $31,885,815 C/P/E Environmental Services, LLC DE-AM09-05SR22405/DE-AT30-07CC60011/SL14 Contractor: Contract Number: Contract Type: Cost Plus Award Fee $357,223 $597,797 $894,699 EM Contractor Fee Site: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) Contract Name: SLAC Environmental Remediation December 2012 $1,516,646 Fee

  11. Design Storm for Total Retention.pdf

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

    Title: Design Storm for "Total Retention" under Individual Permit, Poster, Individual ... International. Environmental Programs Design Storm for "Total Retention" under ...

  12. U.S. Total Imports

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

    St. Clair, MI International Falls, MN Noyes, MN Warroad, MN Babb, MT Havre, MT Port of Del Bonita, MT Port of Morgan, MT Sweetgrass, MT Whitlash, MT Portal, ND Sherwood, ND Pittsburg, NH Champlain, NY Grand Island, NY Massena, NY Niagara Falls, NY Waddington, NY Sumas, WA Highgate Springs, VT North Troy, VT U.S. Pipeline Total from Mexico Ogilby, CA Otay Mesa, CA Alamo, TX El Paso, TX Galvan Ranch, TX Hidalgo, TX McAllen, TX Penitas, TX LNG Imports from Algeria Cove Point, MD Everett, MA Lake

  13. Table 11b. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual

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

    b. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected Price in Nominal Dollars" " (nominal dollars per million Btu)" ,1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO

  14. Total quality management implementation guidelines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-12-01

    These Guidelines were designed by the Energy Quality Council to help managers and supervisors in the Department of Energy Complex bring Total Quality Management to their organizations. Because the Department is composed of a rich mixture of diverse organizations, each with its own distinctive culture and quality history, these Guidelines are intended to be adapted by users to meet the particular needs of their organizations. For example, for organizations that are well along on their quality journeys and may already have achieved quality results, these Guidelines will provide a consistent methodology and terminology reference to foster their alignment with the overall Energy quality initiative. For organizations that are just beginning their quality journeys, these Guidelines will serve as a startup manual on quality principles applied in the Energy context.

  15. Total Imports of Residual Fuel

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

    Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 View History U.S. Total 9,010 5,030 8,596 6,340 4,707 8,092 1936-2016 PAD District 1 3,127 2,664 2,694 1,250 1,327 2,980 1981-2016 Connecticut 1995-2015 Delaware 280 1995-2016 Florida 858 649 800 200 531 499 1995-2016 Georgia 210 262 149 106 1995-2016 Maine 1995-2015 Maryland 84 1995-2016 Massachusetts 1995-2015 New Hampshire 1995-2015 New Jersey 1,283 843 1,073 734 355 1,984 1995-2016 New York 234 824 210 196 175 1995-2016 North Carolina 1995-2011

  16. Total Imports of Residual Fuel

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

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History U.S. Total 133,646 119,888 93,672 82,173 63,294 68,265 1936-2015 PAD District 1 88,999 79,188 59,594 33,566 30,944 33,789 1981-2015 Connecticut 220 129 1995-2015 Delaware 748 1,704 510 1,604 2,479 1995-2015 Florida 15,713 11,654 10,589 8,331 5,055 7,013 1995-2015 Georgia 5,648 7,668 6,370 4,038 2,037 1,629 1995-2015 Maine 1,304 651 419 75 317 135 1995-2015 Maryland 3,638 1,779 1,238 433 938 539 1995-2015 Massachusetts 123 50 78 542 88 1995-2015 New

  17. Total Adjusted Sales of Kerosene

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

    End Use: Total Residential Commercial Industrial Farm All Other Period: Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: End Use Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History U.S. 269,010 305,508 187,656 81,102 79,674 137,928 1984-2014 East Coast (PADD 1) 198,762 237,397 142,189 63,075 61,327 106,995 1984-2014 New England (PADD 1A) 56,661 53,363 38,448 15,983 15,991 27,500 1984-2014 Connecticut 8,800 7,437

  18. Total quality management program planning

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thornton, P.T.; Spence, K.

    1994-05-01

    As government funding grows scarce, competition between the national laboratories is increasing dramatically. In this era of tougher competition, there is no for resistance to change. There must instead be a uniform commitment to improving the overall quality of our products (research and technology) and an increased focus on our customers` needs. There has been an ongoing effort to bring the principles of total quality management (TQM) to all Energy Systems employees to help them better prepare for future changes while responding to the pressures on federal budgets. The need exists for instituting a vigorous program of education and training to an understanding of the techniques needed to improve and initiate a change in organizational culture. The TQM facilitator is responsible for educating the work force on the benefits of self-managed work teams, designing a program of instruction for implementation, and thus getting TQM off the ground at the worker and first-line supervisory levels so that the benefits can flow back up. This program plan presents a conceptual model for TQM in the form of a hot air balloon. In this model, there are numerous factors which can individually and collectively impede the progress of TQM within the division and the Laboratory. When these factors are addressed and corrected, the benefits of TQM become more visible. As this occurs, it is hoped that workers and management alike will grasp the ``total quality`` concept as an acceptable agent for change and continual improvement. TQM can then rise to the occasion and take its rightful place as an integral and valid step in the Laboratory`s formula for survival.

  19. Total-derivative supersymmetry breaking

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Haba, Naoyuki; Uekusa, Nobuhiro

    2010-05-15

    On an interval compactification in supersymmetric theory, boundary conditions for bulk fields must be treated carefully. If they are taken arbitrarily following the requirement that a theory is supersymmetric, the conditions could give redundant constraints on the theory. We construct a supersymmetric action integral on an interval by introducing brane interactions with which total-derivative terms under the supersymmetry transformation become zero due to a cancellation. The variational principle leads equations of motion and also boundary conditions for bulk fields, which determine boundary values of bulk fields. By estimating mass spectrum, spontaneous supersymmetry breaking in this simple setup can be realized in a new framework. This supersymmetry breaking does not induce a massless R axion, which is favorable for phenomenology. It is worth noting that fermions in hyper-multiplet, gauge bosons, and the fifth-dimensional component of gauge bosons can have zero-modes (while the other components are all massive as Kaluza-Klein modes), which fits the gauge-Higgs unification scenarios.

  20. Actual and Estimated Energy Savings Comparison for Deep Energy Retrofits in the Pacific Northwest

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blanchard, Jeremy; Widder, Sarah H.; Giever, Elisabeth L.; Baechler, Michael C.

    2012-10-01

    Seven homes from the Pacific Northwest were selected to evaluate the differences between estimated and actual energy savings achieved from deep energy retrofits. The energy savings resulting from these retrofits were estimated, using energy modeling software, to save at least 30% on a whole-house basis. The modeled pre-retrofit energy use was trued against monthly utility bills. After the retrofits were completed, each of the homes was extensively monitored, with the exception of one home which was monitored pre-retrofit. This work is being conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for the U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program as part of the Building America Program. This work found many discrepancies between actual and estimated energy savings and identified the potential causes for the discrepancies. The differences between actual energy use and modeled energy use also suggest improvements to improve model accuracy. The difference between monthly whole-house actual and estimated energy savings ranged from 75% more energy saved than predicted by the model to 16% less energy saved for all the monitored homes. Similarly, the annual energy savings difference was between 36% and -14%, which was estimated based on existing monitored savings because an entire year of data is not available. Thus, on average, for all six monitored homes the actual energy use is consistently less than estimates, indicating home owners are saving more energy than estimated. The average estimated savings for the eight month monitoring period is 43%, compared to an estimated savings average of 31%. Though this average difference is only 12%, the range of inaccuracies found for specific end-uses is far greater and are the values used to directly estimate energy savings from specific retrofits. Specifically, the monthly post-retrofit energy use differences for specific end-uses (i.e., heating, cooling, hot water, appliances, etc.) ranged from 131% under

  1. Reaction chemistry of nitrogen species in hydrothermal systems: Simple reactions, waste simulants, and actual wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dell`Orco, P.; Luan, L.; Proesmans, P.; Wilmanns, E.

    1995-02-01

    Results are presented from hydrothermal reaction systems containing organic components, nitrogen components, and an oxidant. Reaction chemistry observed in simple systems and in simple waste simulants is used to develop a model which presents global nitrogen chemistry in these reactive systems. The global reaction path suggested is then compared with results obtained for the treatment of an actual waste stream containing only C-N-0-H species.

  2. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

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

    Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing...

  3. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other All Buildings* ... 1,870 1,276...

  4. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Energy Consumption Survey: Energy End-Use Consumption Tables Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other All...

  5. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other All Buildings* ... 1,602 1,397...

  6. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Released: September, 2008 Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other All Buildings ... 2,037...

  7. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)"

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Total Consumption ... AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)" ...

  8. ,"Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Exports"

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products ... "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Exports" ...

  9. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)"

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Total Consumption ... AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New Mexico Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)" ...

  10. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)"

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","North Dakota Natural Gas Total Consumption ... 9:10:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: North Dakota Natural Gas Total Consumption ...

  11. ,"North Carolina Natural Gas Total Consumption (MMcf)"

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","North Carolina Natural Gas Total Consumption ... 9:10:33 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: North Carolina Natural Gas Total Consumption ...

  12. Treatability studies of actual listed waste sludges from the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jantzen, C.M.; Peeler, D.K.; Gilliam, T.M.; Bleier, A.; Spence, R.D.

    1996-05-06

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Savannah River Technology Center (SRTC) are investigating vitrification for various low-level and mixed wastes on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Treatability studies have included surrogate waste formulations at the laboratory-, pilot-, and field-scales and actual waste testing at the laboratory- and pilot-scales. The initial waste to be processing through SRTC`s Transportable Vitrification System (TVS) is the K-1407-B and K-1407-C (B/C) Pond sludge waste which is a RCRA F-listed waste. The B/C ponds at the ORR K-25 site were used as holding and settling ponds for various waste water treatment streams. Laboratory-, pilot-, and field- scale ``proof-of-principle`` demonstrations are providing needed operating parameters for the planned field-scale demonstration with actual B/C Pond sludge waste at ORR. This report discusses the applied systems approach to optimize glass compositions for this particular waste stream through laboratory-, pilot-, and field-scale studies with surrogate and actual B/C waste. These glass compositions will maximize glass durability and waste loading while optimizing melt properties which affect melter operation, such as melt viscosity and melter refractory corrosion. Maximum waste loadings minimize storage volume of the final waste form translating into considerable cost savings.

  13. Dose Rate Analysis Capability for Actual Spent Fuel Transportation Cask Contents

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Radulescu, Georgeta; Lefebvre, Robert A; Peplow, Douglas E.; Williams, Mark L; Scaglione, John M

    2014-01-01

    The approved contents for a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed spent nuclear fuel casks are typically based on bounding used nuclear fuel (UNF) characteristics. However, the contents of the UNF canisters currently in storage at independent spent fuel storage installations are considerably heterogeneous in terms of fuel assembly burnup, initial enrichment, decay time, cladding integrity, etc. Used Nuclear Fuel Storage, Transportation & Disposal Analysis Resource and Data System (UNF ST&DARDS) is an integrated data and analysis system that facilitates automated cask-specific safety analyses based on actual characteristics of the as-loaded UNF. The UNF-ST&DARDS analysis capabilities have been recently expanded to include dose rate analysis of as-loaded transportation packages. Realistic dose rate values based on actual canister contents may be used in place of bounding dose rate values to support development of repackaging operations procedures, evaluation of radiation-related transportation risks, and communication with stakeholders. This paper describes the UNF-ST&DARDS dose rate analysis methodology based on actual UNF canister contents and presents sample dose rate calculation results.

  14. Characterization, Leaching, and Filtration Testing for Tributyl Phosphate (TBP, Group 7) Actual Waste Sample Composites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Edwards, Matthew K.; Billing, Justin M.; Blanchard, David L.; Buck, Edgar C.; Casella, Amanda J.; Casella, Andrew M.; Crum, J. V.; Daniel, Richard C.; Draper, Kathryn E.; Fiskum, Sandra K.; Jagoda, Lynette K.; Jenson, Evan D.; Kozelisky, Anne E.; MacFarlan, Paul J.; Peterson, Reid A.; Shimskey, Rick W.; Snow, Lanee A.; Swoboda, Robert G.

    2009-03-09

    .A testing program evaluating actual tank waste was developed in response to Task 4 from the M-12 External Flowsheet Review Team (EFRT) issue response plan. The bulk water-insoluble solid wastes that are anticipated to be delivered to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) were identified according to type such that the actual waste testing could be targeted to the relevant categories. Eight broad waste groupings were defined. Samples available from the 222S archive were identified and obtained for testing. The actual waste-testing program included homogenizing the samples by group, characterizing the solids and aqueous phases, and performing parametric leaching tests. The tributyl phosphate sludge (TBP, Group 7) is the subject of this report. The Group 7 waste was anticipated to be high in phosphorus as well as aluminum in the form of gibbsite. Both are believed to exist in sufficient quantities in the Group 7 waste to address leaching behavior. Thus, the focus of the Group 7 testing was on the removal of both P and Al. The waste-type definition, archived sample conditions, homogenization activities, characterization (physical, chemical, radioisotope, and crystal habit), and caustic leaching behavior as functions of time, temperature, and hydroxide concentration are discussed in this report. Testing was conducted according to TP-RPP-WTP-467.

  15. " Level: National Data and Regional Totals...

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

    ... by" "petroleum refineries, rather than purchased ... ,,"Total United States" ,"RSE Column ... 324,"Petroleum and Coal ...

  16. Actual versus predicted impacts of three ethanol plants on aquatic and terrestrial resources

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eddlemon, G.K.; Webb, J.W.; Hunsaker, D.B. Jr.; Miller, R.L.

    1993-03-15

    To help reduce US dependence on imported petroleum, Congress passed the Energy Security Act of 1980 (public Law 96-294). This legislation authorized the US Department of Energy (DOE) to promote expansion of the fuel alcohol industry through, among other measures, its Alcohol Fuels Loan Guarantee Program. Under this program, selected proposals for the conversion of plant biomass into fuel-grade ethanol would be granted loan guarantees. of 57 applications submitted for loan guarantees to build and operate ethanol fuel projects under this program, 11 were considered by DOE to have the greatest potential for satisfying DOE`s requirements and goals. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), DOE evaluated the potential impacts of proceeding with the Loan Guarantee Program in a programmatic environmental assessment (DOE 1981) that resulted in a finding of no significant impact (FANCY) (47 Federal Register 34, p. 7483). The following year, DOE conducted site-specific environmental assessments (EAs) for 10 of the proposed projects. These F-As predicted no significant environmental impacts from these projects. Eventually, three ethanol fuel projects received loan guarantees and were actually built: the Tennol Energy Company (Tennol; DOE 1982a) facility near Jasper in southeastern Tennessee; the Agrifuels Refining Corporation (Agrifuels; DOE 1985) facility near New Liberia in southern Louisiana; and the New Energy Company of Indiana (NECI; DOE 1982b) facility in South Bend, Indiana. As part of a larger retrospective examination of a wide range of environmental effects of ethanol fuel plants, we compared the actual effects of the three completed plants on aquatic and terrestrial resources with the effects predicted in the NEPA EAs several years earlier. A secondary purpose was to determine: Why were there differences, if any, between actual effects and predictions? How can assessments be improved and impacts reduced?

  17. TESTING OF THE SPINTEK ROTARY MICROFILTER USING ACTUAL HANFORD WASTE SAMPLES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    HUBER HJ

    2010-04-13

    The SpinTek rotary microfilter was tested on actual Hanford tank waste. The samples were a composite of archived Tank 241-AN-105 material and a sample representing single-shell tanks (SST). Simulants of the two samples have been used in non-rad test runs at the 222-S laboratory and at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). The results of these studies are compared in this report. Two different nominal pore sizes for the sintered steel rotating disk filter were chosen: 0.5 and 0.1 {micro}m. The results suggest that the 0.5-{micro}m disk is preferable for Hanford tank waste for the following reasons: (1) The filtrate clarity is within the same range (<<4 ntu for both disks); (2) The filtrate flux is in general higher for the 0.5-{micro}m disk; and (3) The 0.1-{micro}m disk showed a higher likelihood of fouling. The filtrate flux of the actual tank samples is generally in the range of 20-30% compared to the equivalent non-rad tests. The AN-105 slurries performed at about twice the filtrate flux of the SST slurries. The reason for this difference has not been identified. Particle size distributions in both cases are very similar; comparison of the chemical composition is not conclusive. The sole hint towards what material was stuck in the filter pore holes came from the analysis of the dried flakes from the surface of the fouled 0.1-{micro}m disk. A cleaning approach developed by SRNL personnel to deal with fouled disks has been found adaptable when using actual Hanford samples. The use of 1 M nitric acid improved the filtrate flux by approximately two times; using the same simulants as in the non-rad test runs showed that the filtrate flux was restored to 1/2 of its original amount.

  18. Method and apparatus for distinguishing actual sparse events from sparse event false alarms

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Spalding, Richard E.; Grotbeck, Carter L.

    2000-01-01

    Remote sensing method and apparatus wherein sparse optical events are distinguished from false events. "Ghost" images of actual optical phenomena are generated using an optical beam splitter and optics configured to direct split beams to a single sensor or segmented sensor. True optical signals are distinguished from false signals or noise based on whether the ghost image is presence or absent. The invention obviates the need for dual sensor systems to effect a false target detection capability, thus significantly reducing system complexity and cost.

  19. What do the DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Program Specs Actually Require?

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

    Alternate HVAC Systems & the Need to Use a Credentialed HVAC Contractor What do the DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Program Specs Actually Require? The DOE Zero Energy Ready Home program frequently receives inquiries about the need for qualifying projects to use an HVAC contractor who is certified by an H-QUITO 1 . The DOE Zero Energy Ready Home program incorporates all of the ENERGY STAR Homes provisions. While commissioning is important for all HVAC systems, Versions 3 and 3.1 of the ENERGY

  20. Table 3a. Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil, Projected vs. Actual

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

    a. Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected Price in Constant Dollars" " (constant dollars per barrel in ""dollar year"" specific to each AEO)" ,"AEO $ Year",1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",1992,16.69,16.42999,16.9899,17.66,18.28,19.0599,19.89,20.72,21.65,22.61,23.51,24.29,24.9,25.6,26.3,27,27.64,28.16

  1. ACTUAL WASTE TESTING OF GYCOLATE IMPACTS ON THE SRS TANK FARM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Martino, C.

    2014-05-28

    Glycolic acid is being studied as a replacement for formic acid in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) feed preparation process. After implementation, the recycle stream from DWPF back to the high-level waste Tank Farm will contain soluble sodium glycolate. Most of the potential impacts of glycolate in the Tank Farm were addressed via a literature review and simulant testing, but several outstanding issues remained. This report documents the actual-waste tests to determine the impacts of glycolate on storage and evaporation of Savannah River Site high-level waste. The objectives of this study are to address the following: Determine the extent to which sludge constituents (Pu, U, Fe, etc.) dissolve (the solubility of sludge constituents) in the glycolate-containing 2H-evaporator feed. Determine the impact of glycolate on the sorption of fissile (Pu, U, etc.) components onto sodium aluminosilicate solids. The first objective was accomplished through actual-waste testing using Tank 43H and 38H supernatant and Tank 51H sludge at Tank Farm storage conditions. The second objective was accomplished by contacting actual 2H-evaporator scale with the products from the testing for the first objective. There is no anticipated impact of up to 10 g/L of glycolate in DWPF recycle to the Tank Farm on tank waste component solubilities as investigated in this test. Most components were not influenced by glycolate during solubility tests, including major components such as aluminum, sodium, and most salt anions. There was potentially a slight increase in soluble iron with added glycolate, but the soluble iron concentration remained so low (on the order of 10 mg/L) as to not impact the iron to fissile ratio in sludge. Uranium and plutonium appear to have been supersaturated in 2H-evaporator feed solution mixture used for this testing. As a result, there was a reduction of soluble uranium and plutonium as a function of time. The change in soluble uranium concentration was

  2. Filtration and Leach Testing for REDOX Sludge and S-Saltcake Actual Waste Sample Composites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shimskey, Rick W.; Billing, Justin M.; Buck, Edgar C.; Daniel, Richard C.; Draper, Kathryn E.; Edwards, Matthew K.; Geeting, John GH; Hallen, Richard T.; Jenson, Evan D.; Kozelisky, Anne E.; MacFarlan, Paul J.; Peterson, Reid A.; Snow, Lanee A.; Swoboda, Robert G.

    2009-02-20

    A testing program evaluating actual tank waste was developed in response to Task 4 from the M-12 External Flowsheet Review Team (EFRT) issue response plan.( ) The test program was subdivided into logical increments. The bulk water-insoluble solid wastes that are anticipated to be delivered to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) were identified according to type such that the actual waste testing could be targeted to the relevant categories. Under test plan TP-RPP-WTP-467, eight broad waste groupings were defined. Samples available from the 222S archive were identified and obtained for testing. Under this test plan, a waste-testing program was implemented that included: • Homogenizing the archive samples by group as defined in the test plan • Characterizing the homogenized sample groups • Performing parametric leaching testing on each group for compounds of interest • Performing bench-top filtration/leaching tests in the hot cell for each group to simulate filtration and leaching activities if they occurred in the UFP2 vessel of the WTP Pretreatment Facility. This report focuses on filtration/leaching tests performed on two of the eight waste composite samples and follow-on parametric tests to support aluminum leaching results from those tests.

  3. PERFORMANCE TESTING OF THE NEXT-GENERATION CSSX SOLVENT WITH ACTUAL SRS TANK WASTE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pierce, R.; Peters, T.; Crowder, M.; Fink, S.

    2011-11-01

    Efforts are underway to qualify the Next-Generation Solvent for the Caustic Side Solvent Extraction (CSSX) process. Researchers at multiple national laboratories have been involved in this effort. As part of the effort to qualify the solvent extraction system at the Savannah River Site (SRS), SRNL performed a number of tests at various scales. First, SRNL completed a series of batch equilibrium, or Extraction-Scrub-Strip (ESS), tests. These tests used {approx}30 mL of Next-Generation Solvent and either actual SRS tank waste, or waste simulant solutions. The results from these cesium mass transfer tests were used to predict solvent behavior under a number of conditions. At a larger scale, SRNL assembled 12 stages of 2-cm (diameter) centrifugal contactors. This rack of contactors is structurally similar to one tested in 2001 during the demonstration of the baseline CSSX process. Assembly and mechanical testing found no issues. SRNL performed a nonradiological test using 35 L of cesium-spiked caustic waste simulant and 39 L of actual tank waste. Test results are discussed; particularly those related to the effectiveness of extraction.

  4. Wind farm production cost: Optimum turbine size and farm capacity in the actual market

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laali, A.R.; Meyer, J.L.; Bellot, C.; Louche, A.

    1996-12-31

    Several studies are undertaken in R&D Division of EDF in collaboration with ERASME association in order to have a good knowledge of the wind energy production costs. These studies are performed in the framework of a wind energy monitoring project and concern the influence of a few parameters like wind farm capacity, turbine size and wind speed on production costs, through an analysis of the actual market trend. Some 50 manufacturers and 140 different kind of wind turbines are considered for this study. The minimum production cost is situated at 800/900 kW wind turbine rated power. This point will probably move to more important powers in the future. This study is valid only for average conditions and some special parameters like particular climate conditions or lack of infrastructure for a special site the could modify the results shown on the curves. The variety of wind turbines (rated power as a function of rotor diameter, height and specific rated power) in the actual market is analyzed. A brief analysis of the market trend is also performed. 7 refs., 7 figs.

  5. Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook-

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

    Tables Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other Total Space Heating Water Heating Cook- ing Other All Buildings* ... 634 578 46 1 Q 116.4 106.3...

  6. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    2 Alaska - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S2. Summary statistics for natural gas - Alaska, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 269 277 185 R 159 170 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 127,417 112,268

  7. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    6 District of Columbia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S9. Summary statistics for natural gas - District of Columbia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    0 Indiana - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S16. Summary statistics for natural gas - Indiana, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 620 914 819 R 921 895 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 6,802 9,075

  9. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    4 Massachusetts - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S23. Summary statistics for natural gas - Massachusetts, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0

  10. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    6 Nebraska - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S29. Summary statistics for natural gas - Nebraska, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 276 322 270 R 357 310 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 2,092 1,854

  11. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    50 North Dakota - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S36. Summary statistics for natural gas - North Dakota, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 188 239 211 200 200 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  12. Total System Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA) Peer Review Panel for predicting the performance of a repository at Yucca Mountain.

  13. Table 11a. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual

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

    a. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual" "Projected Price in Constant Dollars" " (constant dollars per million Btu in ""dollar year"" specific to each AEO)" ,"AEO $ Year",1993,1994,1995,1996,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013 "AEO 1994",1992,1.4699,1.4799,1.53,1.57,1.58,1.57,1.61,1.63,1.68,1.69,1.7,1.72,1.7,1.76,1.79,1.81,1.88,1.92 "AEO

  14. Table 11a. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual

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

    a. Coal Prices to Electric Generating Plants, Projected vs. Actual Projected Price in Constant Dollars (constant dollars per million Btu in "dollar year" specific to each AEO) AEO $ Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 1992 1.47 1.48 1.53 1.57 1.58 1.57 1.61 1.63 1.68 1.69 1.70 1.72 1.70 1.76 1.79 1.81 1.88 1.92 AEO 1995 1993 1.39 1.39 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.39 1.39 1.42 1.41 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.47

  15. Table 3a. Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil, Projected vs. Actual

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

    a. Imported Refiner Acquisition Cost of Crude Oil, Projected vs. Actual Projected Price in Constant Dollars (constant dollars per barrel in "dollar year" specific to each AEO) AEO $ Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 1992 16.69 16.43 16.99 17.66 18.28 19.06 19.89 20.72 21.65 22.61 23.51 24.29 24.90 25.60 26.30 27.00 27.64 28.16 AEO 1995 1993 14.90 16.41 16.90 17.45 18.00 18.53 19.13 19.65 20.16 20.63

  16. Table 7a. Natural Gas Price, Electric Power Sector, Actual vs. Projected

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

    a. Natural Gas Price, Electric Power Sector, Actual vs. Projected Projected Price in Constant Dollars (constant dollars per million Btu in "dollar year" specific to each AEO) AEO $ Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AEO 1994 1992 2.44 2.48 2.57 2.66 2.70 2.79 2.84 2.92 3.04 3.16 3.25 3.36 3.51 3.60 3.77 3.91 3.97 4.08 AEO 1995 1993 2.39 2.48 2.42 2.45 2.45 2.53 2.59 2.78 2.91 3.10 3.24 3.38 3.47 3.53 3.61 3.68

  17. Characterization, Leaching, and Filtrations Testing of Ferrocyanide Tank sludge (Group 8) Actual Waste Composite

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fiskum, Sandra K.; Billing, Justin M.; Crum, J. V.; Daniel, Richard C.; Edwards, Matthew K.; Shimskey, Rick W.; Peterson, Reid A.; MacFarlan, Paul J.; Buck, Edgar C.; Draper, Kathryn E.; Kozelisky, Anne E.

    2009-02-28

    This is the final report in a series of eight reports defining characterization, leach, and filtration testing of a wide variety of Hanford tank waste sludges. The information generated from this series is intended to supplement the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) project understanding of actual waste behaviors associated with tank waste sludge processing through the pretreatment portion of the WTP. The work described in this report presents information on a high-iron waste form, specifically the ferrocyanide tank waste sludge. Iron hydroxide has been shown to pose technical challenges during filtration processing; the ferrocyanide tank waste sludge represented a good source of the high-iron matrix to test the filtration processing.

  18. The primary test of measuremental system for the actual emittance of relativistic electron beams

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liang Fu; Tai-bin Du; Xin Chen

    1995-12-31

    Recent, a new measuremental system has been established basically in Tsinghua University PRA. This system is able to measure the lower emittance of the electron beams from the RF accelerators for the FEL. It consists of a scanning magnetic field, a slit, a fluorescent screen, and a TV camera, an image processing system, a CAD 386 computer. Using it an actual phase diagram is obtained for 4-10 Mev electron beams, The principle and structure of the facility were reported in the Proceeding of the 15th FEL Conference. This paper describes the performance of the main components and the results of first measurement for the electron gun and 4Mev standing wave LINAC, Some new suggests are related too.

  19. Actual Scale MOX Powder Mixing Test for MOX Fuel Fabrication Plant in Japan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Osaka, Shuichi; Kurita, Ichiro; Deguchi, Morimoto; Ito, Masanori; Goto, Masakazu

    2007-07-01

    Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. (hereafter, JNFL) promotes a program of constructing a MOX fuel fabrication plant (hereafter, J-MOX) to fabricate MOX fuels to be loaded in domestic light water reactors. Since Japanese fiscal year (hereafter, JFY) 1999, JNFL, to establish the technology for a smooth start-up and the stable operation of J-MOX, has executed an evaluation test for technology to be adopted at J-MOX. JNFL, based on a consideration that J-MOX fuel fabrication comes commercial scale production, decided an introduction of MIMAS technology into J-MOX main process, from powder mixing through pellet sintering, well recognized as mostly important to achieve good quality product of MOX fuel, since it achieves good results in both fuel production and actual reactor irradiation in Europe, but there is one difference that JNFL is going to use Japanese typical plutonium and uranium mixed oxide powder converted with the micro-wave heating direct de-nitration technology (hereafter, MH-MOX) but normal PuO{sub 2} of European MOX fuel fabricators. Therefore, in order to evaluate the suitability of the MH-MOX powder for the MIMAS process, JNFL manufactured small scale test equipment, and implemented a powder mixing evaluation test up until JFY 2003. As a result, the suitability of the MH-MOX powder for the MIMAS process was positively evaluated and confirmed It was followed by a five-years test named an 'actual test' from JFY 2003 to JFY 2007, which aims at demonstrating good operation and maintenance of process equipment as well as obtaining good quality of MOX fuel pellets. (authors)

  20. An insight into actual energy use and its drivers in high-performance buildings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Li, Cheng; Hong, Tianzhen; Yan, Da

    2014-07-12

    Using portfolio analysis and individual detailed case studies, we studied the energy performance and drivers of energy use in 51 high-performance office buildings in the U.S., Europe, China, and other parts of Asia. Portfolio analyses revealed that actual site energy use intensity (EUI) of the study buildings varied by a factor of as much as 11, indicating significant variation in real energy use in HPBs worldwide. Nearly half of the buildings did not meet the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2004 energy target, raising questions about whether a building’s certification as high performing accurately indicates that a building is energy efficient and suggesting that improvement in the design and operation of HPBs is needed to realize their energy-saving potential. We studied the influence of climate, building size, and building technologies on building energy performance and found that although all are important, none are decisive factors in building energy use. EUIs were widely scattered in all climate zones. There was a trend toward low energy use in small buildings, but the correlation was not absolute; some small HPBs exhibited high energy use, and some large HPBs exhibited low energy use. We were unable to identify a set of efficient technologies that correlated directly to low EUIs. In two case studies, we investigated the influence of occupant behavior as well as operation and maintenance on energy performance and found that both play significant roles in realizing energy savings. We conclude that no single factor determines the actual energy performance of HPBs, and adding multiple efficient technologies does not necessarily improve building energy performance; therefore, an integrated design approach that takes account of climate, technology, occupant behavior, and operations and maintenance practices should be implemented to maximize energy savings in HPBs. As a result, these findings are

  1. An insight into actual energy use and its drivers in high-performance buildings

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Li, Cheng; Hong, Tianzhen; Yan, Da

    2014-07-12

    Using portfolio analysis and individual detailed case studies, we studied the energy performance and drivers of energy use in 51 high-performance office buildings in the U.S., Europe, China, and other parts of Asia. Portfolio analyses revealed that actual site energy use intensity (EUI) of the study buildings varied by a factor of as much as 11, indicating significant variation in real energy use in HPBs worldwide. Nearly half of the buildings did not meet the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2004 energy target, raising questions about whether a building’s certification as high performing accuratelymore » indicates that a building is energy efficient and suggesting that improvement in the design and operation of HPBs is needed to realize their energy-saving potential. We studied the influence of climate, building size, and building technologies on building energy performance and found that although all are important, none are decisive factors in building energy use. EUIs were widely scattered in all climate zones. There was a trend toward low energy use in small buildings, but the correlation was not absolute; some small HPBs exhibited high energy use, and some large HPBs exhibited low energy use. We were unable to identify a set of efficient technologies that correlated directly to low EUIs. In two case studies, we investigated the influence of occupant behavior as well as operation and maintenance on energy performance and found that both play significant roles in realizing energy savings. We conclude that no single factor determines the actual energy performance of HPBs, and adding multiple efficient technologies does not necessarily improve building energy performance; therefore, an integrated design approach that takes account of climate, technology, occupant behavior, and operations and maintenance practices should be implemented to maximize energy savings in HPBs. As a result, these

  2. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    0 Alabama - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S1. Summary statistics for natural gas - Alabama, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7,026 7,063 6,327 R 6,165 6,118 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  3. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    6 Arkansas - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S4. Summary statistics for natural gas - Arkansas, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7,397 8,388 8,538 R 9,843 10,150 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  4. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    8 California - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S5. Summary statistics for natural gas - California, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 1,580 1,308 1,423 R 1,335 1,118 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  5. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    0 Colorado - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S6. Summary statistics for natural gas - Colorado, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 28,813 30,101 32,000 R 32,468 38,346 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  6. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    8 Florida - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S10. Summary statistics for natural gas - Florida, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 17,182 16,459 19,742

  7. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    0 Georgia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S11. Summary statistics for natural gas - Georgia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    6 Idaho - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S14. Summary statistics for natural gas - Idaho, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells 0 0

  9. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    8 Illinois - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S15. Summary statistics for natural gas - Illinois, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 50 40 40 R 34 36 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells E 1,697 2,114

  10. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    2 Iowa - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S17. Summary statistics for natural gas - Iowa, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells 0 0 0

  11. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    4 Kansas - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S18. Summary statistics for natural gas - Kansas, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 22,145 25,758 24,697 R 23,792 24,354 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  12. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    6 Kentucky - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S19. Summary statistics for natural gas - Kentucky, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 17,670 14,632 17,936 R 19,494 19,256 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  13. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    8 Louisiana - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S20. Summary statistics for natural gas - Louisiana, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 19,137 21,235 19,792 R 19,528 19,251 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  14. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    0 Maine - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S21. Summary statistics for natural gas - Maine, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 0 0 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 0 From Oil Wells 0 0

  15. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    6 Michigan - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S24. Summary statistics for natural gas - Michigan, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 10,100 11,100 10,900 R 10,550 10,500 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  16. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    0 Mississippi - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S26. Summary statistics for natural gas - Mississippi, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 1,979 5,732 1,669 R 1,967 1,645 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  17. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    2 Missouri - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S27. Summary statistics for natural gas - Missouri, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 53 100 R 26 28 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 R 8 8 From

  18. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    4 Montana - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S28. Summary statistics for natural gas - Montana, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 6,059 6,477 6,240 5,754 5,754 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  19. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    8 Nevada - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S30. Summary statistics for natural gas - Nevada, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 0 0 0 R 4 4 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 0 0 0 0 3 From Oil Wells

  20. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    4 New Mexico - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S33. Summary statistics for natural gas - New Mexico, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 44,748 32,302 28,206 R 27,073 27,957 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From

  1. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    6 New York - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S34. Summary statistics for natural gas - New York, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 6,736 6,157 7,176 R 6,902 7,119 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  2. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    2 Ohio - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S37. Summary statistics for natural gas - Ohio, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 34,931 46,717 35,104 R 32,664 32,967 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  3. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    4 Oklahoma - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S38. Summary statistics for natural gas - Oklahoma, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 44,000 41,238 40,000 39,776 40,070 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas

  4. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    6 Oregon - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S39. Summary statistics for natural gas - Oregon, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 26 24 27 R 26 28 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 1,407 1,344 770 770

  5. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    8 Pennsylvania - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S40. Summary statistics for natural gas - Pennsylvania, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 44,500 54,347 55,136 R 53,762 70,400 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals

  6. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    6 Tennessee - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S44. Summary statistics for natural gas - Tennessee, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 230 210 212 R 1,089 1,024 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 5,144

  7. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    8 Texas - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S45. Summary statistics for natural gas - Texas, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 95,014 100,966 96,617 97,618 98,279 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    0 Utah - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S46. Summary statistics for natural gas - Utah, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 6,075 6,469 6,900 R 7,030 7,275 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 328,135

  9. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    4 Virginia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S48. Summary statistics for natural gas - Virginia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7,470 7,903 7,843 R 7,956 7,961 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells

  10. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    8 West Virginia - Natural Gas 2014 Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total Total Net Movements: - Industrial: Dry Production: Vehicle Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S50. Summary statistics for natural gas - West Virginia, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 52,498 56,813 50,700 R 54,920 60,000 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals