National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for total operating capacity

  1. U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries

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

    Area: U.S. East Coast (PADD 1) Midwest (PADD 2) Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) West Coast (PADD 5) Period: Annual (as of January 1) Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Total 710,413 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Crude Oil 180,846 -- -- -- -- -- 1985-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 33,842 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Propane/Propylene 8,513 -- --

  2. ,"U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries"

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

    Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries",28,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  3. 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

  4. Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Barrels per Calendar Day) 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

  5. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Salt Caverns Storage Capacity Aquifers Storage Capacity Depleted Fields Storage Capacity Total Working Gas Capacity Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers Working Gas Capacity of Depleted Fields Total Number of Existing Fields Number of Existing Salt Caverns Number of Existing Aquifers Number of Depleted Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data

  6. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    Salt Caverns Storage Capacity Aquifers Storage Capacity Depleted Fields Storage Capacity Total Working Gas Capacity Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers Working Gas Capacity of Depleted Fields Total Number of Existing Fields Number of Existing Salt Caverns Number of Existing Aquifers Number of Depleted Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data

  7. ,"Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity "

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

    ...orcapaepg0sacmmcfm.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity " "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGMEP...

  8. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    Total Working Gas Capacity Total Number of Existing Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 9,228,173 9,219,173 9,224,005 9,225,079 9,225,911 9,228,240 1989-2015 Alaska 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2015 Lower 48 States 9,144,581 9,135,581 9,140,412 9,141,486 9,142,319 9,144,648

  9. Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Operable Capacity

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

    Charge Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating NaphthaReformer Feed Charge Cap (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating Gasoline Charge Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Hydrotreating...

  10. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 4,737,921 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,509 1995 4,730,109 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 1996 4,593,948

  11. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 2,026,828 2,068,220 2,068,220 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,074,428 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 1995 2,082,928 2,096,611 2,096,611 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 1996 2,095,131 2,106,116

  12. Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,723,336 2,725,497 2,725,535 2015 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,716,587 2,715,888 2,717,255 2,718,087 2,718,087 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  13. South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,578,946 2,577,866 2,578,498 2,578,547 2,590,575 2,599,184 2,611,335 2,616,178 2,612,570 2,613,746 2,635,148 2,634,993 2015 2,631,717 2,630,903 2,631,616 2,631,673 2,631,673 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,636,984 2,637,895 2,637,895 2,640,224 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  14. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 8,842,950 8,854,720 8,854,720 8,882,728 8,905,843 8,919,139 8,922,097 8,940,010 8,979,317 8,991,571 8,990,535 8,992,535 2013 8,965,468 8,971,280 8,986,201 8,988,916 9,020,589 9,027,650 9,033,704 9,048,658 9,087,425 9,093,741 9,090,861 9,089,358 2014 9,081,309 9,080,229 9,080,862 9,080,910

  15. Mountain Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 909,887 912,887 912,887...

  16. Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176...

  17. U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries

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

    Area: U.S. East Coast (PADD 1) Midwest (PADD 2) Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) West Coast (PADD 5) Period: Annual (as of January 1) Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Total 617,513 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Crude Oil 153,181 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 30,852 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Propane/Propylene 8,150 -- --

  18. High energy bursts from a solid state laser operated in the heat capacity limited regime

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Albrecht, Georg; George, E. Victor; Krupke, William F.; Sooy, Walter; Sutton, Steven B.

    1996-01-01

    High energy bursts are produced from a solid state laser operated in a heat capacity limited regime. Instead of cooling the laser, the active medium is thermally well isolated. As a result, the active medium will heat up until it reaches some maximum acceptable temperature. The waste heat is stored in the active medium itself. Therefore, the amount of energy the laser can put out during operation is proportional to its mass, the heat capacity of the active medium, and the temperature difference over which it is being operated. The high energy burst capacity of a heat capacity operated solid state laser, together with the absence of a heavy, power consuming steady state cooling system for the active medium, will make a variety of applications possible. Alternately, cooling takes place during a separate sequence when the laser is not operating. Industrial applications include new material working processes.

  19. High energy bursts from a solid state laser operated in the heat capacity limited regime

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Albrecht, G.; George, E.V.; Krupke, W.F.; Sooy, W.; Sutton, S.B.

    1996-06-11

    High energy bursts are produced from a solid state laser operated in a heat capacity limited regime. Instead of cooling the laser, the active medium is thermally well isolated. As a result, the active medium will heat up until it reaches some maximum acceptable temperature. The waste heat is stored in the active medium itself. Therefore, the amount of energy the laser can put out during operation is proportional to its mass, the heat capacity of the active medium, and the temperature difference over which it is being operated. The high energy burst capacity of a heat capacity operated solid state laser, together with the absence of a heavy, power consuming steady state cooling system for the active medium, will make a variety of applications possible. Alternately, cooling takes place during a separate sequence when the laser is not operating. Industrial applications include new material working processes. 5 figs.

  20. "Table A45. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy...

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

    ," 500 and Over",1166.9,4,1.9,0.9,5.3,12.7 ,"Total",806,6.7,2.7,0.2,7.7,5 2011,"Meat Packing Plants" ,"Value of Shipments and Receipts " ,"(million dollars)" ," Under ...

  1. "Table A46. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy...

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

    ," 1000 and Over",447.9,4.3,1.6,0.9,7,7.8 ,"Total",806,6.7,2.7,0.2,7.7,5 2011,"Meat Packing Plants" ,"Employment Size " ," Under 50"," Q "," Q "," Q ",0," Q ",0 ," ...

  2. ,"U.S. Downstream Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries"

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

    Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Downstream Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries",32,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016"

  3. ,"U.S. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries"

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

    Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries",11,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016" ,"Excel

  4. ,"U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries"

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

    Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries",28,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  5. Standard for the qualification of high capacity fossil fuel fired plant operators

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Axtman, W.

    1996-12-31

    The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and, in recognition of the needs and benefits associated with standard qualifications of operators of high capacity fossil fuel fired plants, established the Qualifications of High Capacity Fossil Fuel Fired Operator (QFO) Committee in 1994. The purpose of the QFO Committee is to develop and maintain such a standard for operators. This standard includes qualifications, duties, responsibilities and the certification requirements for operators as appropriate to The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 for fossil fuel fired plants with inputs equal to or greater than 10,000 Btu/hr. This Standard does not cover the certification or validation of fossil plant operating procedures, operating practices, facility performance, nor compliance with any particular permit requirement. This standard recognizes the titles or positions to which any particular fossil plant operator may apply, will vary within a facility. Therefore, this standard does not attempt to identify the individual who is required to obtain certification in any class designation. The fossil plant owner is urged to contact the local jurisdiction in which the fossil plant is located in this regard. This standard does not in itself require certification but rather it serves as a means for complying with federal, state, and local regulations which require operators of fossil fuel fired boilers with inputs equal to or greater than 10,000,000 But/hr to be certified. Safety codes and standards are intended to enhance public health and safety. Revisions to this Standard result from committee considerations of factors such as technological advances, new data, and changing environmental and industry needs. Revisions do not imply that previous editions of this standard were inadequate.

  6. 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......

  7. Refinery Capacity Report

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1 Idle Operating Total Stream Day Barrels per Idle Operating Total Calendar Day Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Idle Operating Total Operable Refineries Number of State and PAD District a b b 14 10 4 1,617,500 1,205,000 412,500 1,708,500 1,273,500 435,000 ............................................................................................................................................... PAD District I 1 0 1 182,200 0 182,200 190,200 0 190,200

  8. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    5 Idle Operating Total Stream Day Barrels per Idle Operating Total Calendar Day Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Idle Operating Total Operable Refineries Number of State and PAD District a b b 9 9 0 1,268,500 1,236,500 32,000 1,332,000 1,297,000 35,000 ............................................................................................................................................... PAD District I 1 1 0 182,200 182,200 0 190,200 190,200 0

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

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

    2,033 1,618 1,031 791 630 401 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500... 3.2 357 336 113 188 177 59 500 to 999......

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

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

    . 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......

  11. 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......

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

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

    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......

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Total................................................................... 111.1 2,033 1,618 1,031 791 630 401 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................................... 3.2 357 336 113 188 177 59 500 to 999....................................................... 23.8 733 667 308 343 312 144 1,000 to 1,499................................................. 20.8 1,157 1,086 625 435 409 235 1,500 to 1,999................................................. 15.4 1,592

  14. Total Working Gas Capacity

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

    Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History U.S. 4,327,844 4,410,224 4,483,650 4,576,356 4,748,636 4,785,669 2008-2014 Alaska 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Alabama 20,900 25,150 27,350 27,350 27,350 33,150 2008-2014 Arkansas 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 California 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 374,296 374,296 2008-2014

  15. Total

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

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases Propane/Propylene Normal Butane/Butylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Fuels Gasoline Blending Components Petroleum Products Finished Motor Gasoline Reformulated Gasoline Conventional Gasoline Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Kerosene Distillate Fuel Oil Distillate Fuel Oil, 15 ppm Sulfur and Under Distillate Fuel Oil, Greater than 15 ppm to 500 ppm Sulfur

  16. Total

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

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases Propane/Propylene Normal Butane/Butylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Other Renewable Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Fuels Gasoline Blending Components Petroleum Products Finished Motor Gasoline Reformulated Gasoline Conventional Gasoline Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Kerosene Distillate Fuel Oil Distillate Fuel Oil, 15 ppm Sulfur and Under Distillate Fuel Oil, Greater than 15 ppm to 500 ppm Sulfur

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 2.1 0.6 Q 0.4 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 13.6 3.7 3.2 3.2 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 9.5 3.7 3.4 4.2 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 6.6 2.7 2.5 3.6 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 5.0 2.1

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    .. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    .. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  3. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    CORPORATION / Refiner / Location Table 5. Refiners' Total Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1, 2015 Calendar Day Barrels per CORPORATION / Refiner / Location Calendar Day Barrels per Companies with Capacity Over 100,000 bbl/cd .............................................................................................................................. VALERO ENERGY CORP 1,964,300 Valero Refining Co Texas LP

  4. Modeling the performance of small capacity lithium bromide-water absorption chiller operated by solar energy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saman, N.F.; Sa`id, W.A.D.K.

    1996-12-31

    An analysis of the performance of a solar operated small capacity (two-ton) Lithium Bromide-Water (LiBr-H{sub 2}O) absorption system is conducted. The analysis is based on the first law of thermodynamics with lithium bromide as the absorbent and water as the refrigerant. The effect of various parameters affecting the machine coefficient of performance under various operating conditions is reported. Coefficient of performance of up to 0.8 can be obtained using flat plate solar collectors with generator temperatures in the range of 80--95 C (176--203 F). Liquid heat exchangers with effectiveness based on an NTU of the order of one would be a good design choice. The chiller can save approximately 3,456 kWh/yr per a two-ton unit, and it will reduce emissions by 19 lb of NO{sub x}, 5,870 lb of CO{sub 2}, and 16 lb of SO{sub x} per year per machine.

  5. "Table A15. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy Consumption for"

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

    Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy Consumption for" " Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation by Census Region and Economic" " Characteristics of the Establishment, 1991" ,,,"Consumption","Major" " "," ","Consumption","per Dollar","Byproducts(b)","Fuel Oil(c)"," " " ","Consumption","per Dollar","of Value","as a

  6. "Table A48. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy Consumption for"

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

    8. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy Consumption for" " Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation by Census Region, Census Division, and Economic" " Characteristics of the Establishment, 1994" ,,,"Consumption","Major" " "," ","Consumption","per Dollar","Byproducts(b)","Fuel Oil(c)"," " " ","Consumption","per Dollar","of

  7. "Table A50. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy Consumption for"

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

    0. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy Consumption for" " Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation by Industry Group," " Selected Industries, and Economic Characteristics of the" " Establishment, 1991 (Continued)" ,,,,,"Major" ,,,"Consumption","Consumption per","Byproducts(c)","Fuel Oil(d)" ,,"Consumption","per Dollar","Dollar of Value","as a Percent

  8. "Table A51. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy Consumption for"

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

    1. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy Consumption for" " Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation by Census Region and Economic" " Characteristics of the Establishment, 1991 " ,,,,,"Major" ,,,"Consumption","Consumption per","Byproducts(c)","Fuel Oil(d)" ,,"Consumption","per Dollar","Dollar of Value","as a Percent","as a Percent","RSE"

  9. High capacity fossil fuel fired plant operator training program. Student handbook. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pearson, S.; Gardner, M.; Nguyen, Q.

    1994-09-30

    The operator of fossil fuel-fired boilers has a significant responsibility in assuring that the unit is continuously operated in a manner which complies with the various state and federal regulations. The course will emphasize the operating principles for all types of boilers and for all types of control equipment used for controlling air emissions from boilers. The course will emphasize the significant operating parameters that directly influence air emissions.

  10. Table 8.11a Electric Net Summer Capacity: Total (All Sectors), 1949-2011 (Sum of Tables 8.11b and 8.11d; Kilowatts)

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

    a Electric Net Summer Capacity: Total (All Sectors), 1949-2011 (Sum of Tables 8.11b and 8.11d; Kilowatts) Year Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Pumped Storage Renewable Energy Other 9 Total Coal 1 Petroleum 2 Natural Gas 3 Other Gases 4 Total Conventional Hydroelectric Power 5 Biomass Geo- thermal Solar/PV 8 Wind Total Wood 6 Waste 7 1949 NA NA NA NA 44,887,000 0 [5] 18,500,000 13,000 [10] NA NA NA 18,513,000 NA 63,400,000 1950 NA NA NA NA 49,987,000 0 [5] 19,200,000 13,000

  11. Draft environmental impact statement for the siting, construction, and operation of New Production Reactor capacity. Volume 1, Summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-04-01

    This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assesses the potential environmental impacts, both on a broad programmatic level and on a project-specific level, concerning a proposed action to provide new tritium production capacity to meet the nation`s nuclear defense requirements well into the 21st century. A capacity equivalent to that of about a 3,000-megawatt (thermal) heavy-water reactor was assumed as a reference basis for analysis in this EIS; this is the approximate capacity of the existing production reactors at DOE`s Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. The EIS programmatic alternatives address Departmental decisions to be made on whether to build new production facilities, whether to build one or more complexes, what size production capacity to provide, and when to provide this capacity. Project-specific impacts for siting, constructing, and operating new production reactor capacity are assessed for three alternative sites: the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; and the Savannah River Site. For each site, the impacts of three reactor technologies (and supporting facilities) are assessed: a heavy-water reactor, a light-water reactor, and a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Impacts of the no-action alternative also are assessed. The EIS evaluates impacts related to air quality; noise levels; surface water, groundwater, and wetlands; land use; recreation; visual environment; biotic resources; historical, archaeological, and cultural resources; socioeconomics; transportation; waste management; and human health and safety. The EIS describes in detail the potential radioactive releases from new production reactors and support facilities and assesses the potential doses to workers and the general public.

  12. Draft environmental impact statement siting, construction, and operation of New Production Reactor capacity. Volume 4, Appendices D-R

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1991-04-01

    This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assesses the potential environmental impacts, both on a broad programmatic level and on a project-specific level, concerning a proposed action to provide new tritium production capacity to meet the nation`s nuclear defense requirements well into the 21st century. A capacity equivalent to that of about a 3,000-megawatt (thermal) heavy-water reactor was assumed as a reference basis for analysis in this EIS; this is the approximate capacity of the existing production reactors at DOE`s Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. The EIS programmatic alternatives address Departmental decisions to be made on whether to build new production facilities, whether to build one or more complexes, what size production capacity to provide, and when to provide this capacity. Project-specific impacts for siting, constructing, and operating new production reactor capacity are assessed for three alternative sites: the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; and the Savannah River Site. For each site, the impacts of three reactor technologies (and supporting facilities) are assessed: a heavy-water reactor, a light-water reactor, and a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Impacts of the no-action alternative also are assessed. The EIS evaluates impacts related to air quality; noise levels; surface water, groundwater, and wetlands; land use; recreation; visual environment; biotic resources; historical, archaeological, and cultural resources; socioeconomics; transportation; waste management; and human health and safety. The EIS describes in detail the potential radioactive releases from new production reactors and support facilities and assesses the potential doses to workers and the general public. This volume contains 15 appendices.

  13. FAQs about Storage Capacity

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

    about Storage Capacity How do I determine if my tanks are in operation or idle or ... Do I have to report storage capacity every month? No, only report storage capacity with ...

  14. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries by PAD District as of January 1, 2006 PDF 9 Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries by PAD District as of January 1, 2006 PDF 10...

  15. Draft environmental impact statement for the siting, construction, and operation of New Production Reactor capacity. Volume 3, Sections 7-12, Appendices A-C

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-04-01

    This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assesses the potential environmental impacts, both on a broad programmatic level and on a project-specific level, concerning a proposed action to provide new tritium production capacity to meet the nation`s nuclear defense requirements well into the 21st century. A capacity equivalent to that of about a 3,000-megawatt (thermal) heavy-water reactor was assumed as a reference basis for analysis in this EIS; this is the approximate capacity of the existing production reactors at DOE`s Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. The EIS programmatic alternatives address Departmental decisions to be made on whether to build new production facilities, whether to build one or more complexes, what size production capacity to provide, and when to provide this capacity. Project-specific impacts for siting, constructing, and operating new production reactor capacity are assessed for three alternative sites: the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; and the Savannah River Site. For each site, the impacts of three reactor technologies (and supporting facilities) are assessed: a heavy-water reactor, a light-water reactor, and a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Impacts of the no-action alternative also are assessed. The EIS evaluates impacts related to air quality; noise levels; surface water, groundwater, and wetlands; land use; recreation; visual environment; biotic resources; historical, archaeological, and cultural resources; socioeconomics; transportation; waste management; and human health and safety. The EIS describes in detail the potential radioactive releases from new production reactors and support facilities and assesses the potential doses to workers and the general public. This volume contains references; a list of preparers and recipients; acronyms, abbreviations, and units of measure; a glossary; an index and three appendices.

  16. Draft environmental impact statement for the siting, construction, and operation of New Production Reactor capacity. Volume 2, Sections 1-6

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-04-01

    This (EIS) assesses the potential environmental impacts, both on a broad programmatic level and on a project-specific level, concerning a proposed action to provide new tritium production capacity to meet the nation`s nuclear defense requirements well into the 21st century. A capacity equivalent to that of about a 3,000-megawatt (thermal) heavy-water reactor was assumed as a reference basis for analysis in this EIS; this is the approximate capacity of the existing production reactors at DOE`s Savannah River Site. The EIS programmatic alternatives address Departmental decisions to be made on whether to build new production facilities, whether to build one or more complexes, what size production capacity to provide, and when to provide this capacity. Project-specific impacts for siting, constructing, and operating new production reactor capacity are assessed for three alternative sites: the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; and the Savannah River Site. For each site, the impacts of three reactor technologies (and supporting facilities) are assessed: a heavy-water reactor, a light-water reactor, and a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Impacts of the no-action alternative also are assessed. The EIS evaluates impacts related to air quality; noise levels; surface water, groundwater, and wetlands; land use; recreation; visual environment; biotic resources; historical, archaeological, and cultural resources; socioeconomics; transportation; waste management; and human health and safety. The EIS describes in detail the potential radioactive releases from new production reactors and support facilities and assesses the potential doses to workers and the general public. This volume contains the analysis of programmatic alternatives, project alternatives, affected environment of alternative sites, environmental consequences, and environmental regulations and permit requirements.

  17. Variable capacity gasification burner

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saxon, D.I.

    1985-03-05

    A variable capacity burner that may be used in gasification processes, the burner being adjustable when operating in its intended operating environment to operate at two different flow capacities, with the adjustable parts being dynamically sealed within a statically sealed structural arrangement to prevent dangerous blow-outs of the reactants to the atmosphere.

  18. Geothermal Plant Capacity Factors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Greg Mines; Jay Nathwani; Christopher Richard; Hillary Hanson; Rachel Wood

    2015-01-01

    The capacity factors recently provided by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicated this plant performance metric had declined for geothermal power plants since 2008. Though capacity factor is a term commonly used by geothermal stakeholders to express the ability of a plant to produce power, it is a term frequently misunderstood and in some instances incorrectly used. In this paper we discuss how this capacity factor is defined and utilized by the EIA, including discussion on the information that the EIA requests from operations in their 923 and 860 forms that are submitted both monthly and annually by geothermal operators. A discussion is also provided regarding the entities utilizing the information in the EIA reports, and how those entities can misinterpret the data being supplied by the operators. The intent of the paper is to inform the facility operators as the importance of the accuracy of the data that they provide, and the implications of not providing the correct information.

  19. Refinery Capacity Report

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    Data series include fuel, electricity, and steam purchased for consumption at the refinery; refinery receipts of crude oil by method of transportation; and current and projected atmospheric crude oil distillation, downstream charge, and production capacities. Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year, located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions. The Refinery Capacity Report does not contain working and shell storage capacity data. This data is now being collected twice a year as of March 31 and September 30 on the Form EIA-810, "Monthly Refinery Report", and is now released as a separate report Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity.

  20. EIS-0144: Siting, Construction, and Operation of New Production Reactor Capacity; Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and Savannah River Site

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Department of Energy developed this statement to assess the potential environmental impacts, both on a broad programmatic level and on a project-specific level, concerning a proposed action to provide new tritium production capacity to meet the nation's nuclear defense requirements well into the 21st century. This EIS was cancelled after the DEIS was issued.

  1. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    District and State Production Capacity Alkylates Aromatics Asphalt and Road Oil Isomers Lubricants Marketable Petroleum Coke Sulfur (short tons/day) Hydrogen (MMcfd) Table 2. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by PAD District and State as of January 1, 2015 (Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) a 83,429 10,111 26,500 87,665 21,045 21,120 69 1,159 PAD District I Delaware 11,729 5,191 0 6,000 0 13,620 40 596 New Jersey 29,200 0 65,000 4,000 12,000 7,500 26 280 Pennsylvania

  2. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Distillation Crude Oil Atmospheric Distillation Vacuum Cracking Thermal Catalytic Cracking Fresh Recycled Catalytic Hydro- Cracking Catalytic Reforming Desulfurization Hydrotreating/ Fuels Solvent Deasphalting Downstream Charge Capacity Table 6. Operable Crude Oil and Downstream Charge Capacity of Petroleum Refineries, January 1, 1986 to (Thousand Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) January 1, 2015 JAN 1, 1986 16,346 6,892 1,880 5,214 463 1,125 3,744 8,791 NA JAN 1, 1987 16,460 6,935

  3. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Alkylates Aromatics Road Oil and Lubricants Petroleum Coke (MMcfd) Hydrogen Sulfur (short tons/day) Production Capacity Asphalt Isomers Marketable Table 7. Operable Production Capacity of Petroleum Refineries, January 1, 1986 to January 1, 2015 (Thousand Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) a JAN 1, 1986 941 276 804 258 246 356 2,357 NA JAN 1, 1987 974 287 788 326 250 364 2,569 23,806 JAN 1, 1988 993 289 788 465 232 368 2,418 27,639 JAN 1, 1989 1,015 290 823 469 230 333 2,501 28,369 JAN

  4. Dual capacity reciprocating compressor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wolfe, R.W.

    1984-10-30

    A multi-cylinder compressor particularly useful in connection with northern climate heat pumps and in which different capacities are available in accordance with reversing motor rotation is provided with an eccentric cam on a crank pin under a fraction of the connecting rods, and arranged for rotation upon the crank pin between opposite positions 180[degree] apart so that with cam rotation on the crank pin such that the crank throw is at its normal maximum value all pistons pump at full capacity, and with rotation of the crank shaft in the opposite direction the cam moves to a circumferential position on the crank pin such that the overall crank throw is zero. Pistons whose connecting rods ride on a crank pin without a cam pump their normal rate with either crank rotational direction. Thus a small clearance volume is provided for any piston that moves when in either capacity mode of operation. 6 figs.

  5. Dual capacity reciprocating compressor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wolfe, Robert W. (Wilkinsburg, PA)

    1984-01-01

    A multi-cylinder compressor 10 particularly useful in connection with northern climate heat pumps and in which different capacities are available in accordance with reversing motor 16 rotation is provided with an eccentric cam 38 on a crank pin 34 under a fraction of the connecting rods, and arranged for rotation upon the crank pin between opposite positions 180.degree. apart so that with cam rotation on the crank pin such that the crank throw is at its normal maximum value all pistons pump at full capacity, and with rotation of the crank shaft in the opposite direction the cam moves to a circumferential position on the crank pin such that the overall crank throw is zero. Pistons 24 whose connecting rods 30 ride on a crank pin 36 without a cam pump their normal rate with either crank rotational direction. Thus a small clearance volume is provided for any piston that moves when in either capacity mode of operation.

  6. Florida products pipeline set to double capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    True, W.R.

    1995-11-13

    Directional drilling has begun this fall for a $68.5 million, approximately 110,000 b/d expansion of Central Florida Pipeline Co.`s refined products line from Tampa to Orlando. The drilling started in August and is scheduled to conclude this month, crossing under seven water bodies in Hillsborough, Polk, and Osceola counties. The current 6 and 10-in. system provides more than 90% of the petroleum products used in Central Florida, according to Central Florida Pipeline. Its additional capacity will meet the growing region`s demand for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The new pipeline, along with the existing 10-in. system, will increase total annual capacity from 30 million bbl (82,192 b/d) to approximately 70 million bbl (191,781 b/d). The older 6-in. line will be shutdown when the new line is operating fully. The steps of pipeline installation are described.

  7. Solar Energy and Capacity Value (Fact Sheet)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    2013-09-01

    This is a one-page, two-sided fact sheet on the capacity of solar power to provide value to utilities and power system operators.

  8. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Former Corporation/Refiner Total Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity (bbl/cd) New Corporation/Refiner Date of Sale Table 12. Refinery Sales During 2014 Lindsay Goldberg LLC/Axeon Speciality Products LLC Nustar Asphalt LLC/Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC 2/14 Savannah, GA 28,000 Lindsay Goldberg LLC/Axeon Specialty Products LLC Nustar Asphalt LLC/Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC 2/14 Paulsboro, NJ 70,000 bbl/cd= Barrels per calendar day Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form

  9. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 2014 View History Total Storage Capacity 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 5 5 2013

  10. U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    7,933,967 7,934,228 7,929,728 7,974,893 7,974,893 7,974,893 7,975,643 7,978,632 7,979,132 7,987,416 7,985,156 7,988,856 1994 7,990,852 8,028,112 8,028,112 8,028,321 8,028,321...

  11. East Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    2,200,169 2,200,169 2015 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 - No Data Reported; -- Not...

  12. ORISE: Capacity Building

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

    Capacity Building Because public health agencies must maintain the resources to respond to public health challenges, critical situations and emergencies, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) helps government agencies and organizations develop a solid infrastructure through capacity building. Capacity building refers to activities that improve an organization's ability to achieve its mission or a person's ability do his or her job more effectively. For organizations, capacity

  13. Capacity Value of Concentrating Solar Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2011-06-01

    This study estimates the capacity value of a concentrating solar power (CSP) plant at a variety of locations within the western United States. This is done by optimizing the operation of the CSP plant and by using the effective load carrying capability (ELCC) metric, which is a standard reliability-based capacity value estimation technique. Although the ELCC metric is the most accurate estimation technique, we show that a simpler capacity-factor-based approximation method can closely estimate the ELCC value. Without storage, the capacity value of CSP plants varies widely depending on the year and solar multiple. The average capacity value of plants evaluated ranged from 45%?90% with a solar multiple range of 1.0-1.5. When introducing thermal energy storage (TES), the capacity value of the CSP plant is more difficult to estimate since one must account for energy in storage. We apply a capacity-factor-based technique under two different market settings: an energy-only market and an energy and capacity market. Our results show that adding TES to a CSP plant can increase its capacity value significantly at all of the locations. Adding a single hour of TES significantly increases the capacity value above the no-TES case, and with four hours of storage or more, the average capacity value at all locations exceeds 90%.

  14. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  15. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 2013-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  16. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  17. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,079,462 1,070,462 1,070,462 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 682,569 682,569 682,569 685,726 685,726 685,726 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 44 44 44 44 44 44

  18. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    31,301 331,301 331,301 331,812 331,812 331,812 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 200,903 200,903 200,903 201,388 201,388 201,388 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 12 12 12 12 12 12

  19. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  20. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  1. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  2. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    376,435 376,435 374,735 375,135 375,135 375,143 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 190,955 190,955 189,255 189,455 189,455 191,455 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13

  3. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  4. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 49 49 49 49 49 49

  5. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    832,644 832,644 832,644 832,644 832,644 834,965 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 528,445 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 36 36 36 36 36 36

  6. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    124,518 124,518 124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3

  7. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  8. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    603,012 603,012 603,012 601,808 601,808 601,808 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 376,996 376,996 376,996 375,496 375,496 375,496 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 14 14 14 14 14 14

  9. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 10 10 10 10 10 10

  10. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    ,004,598 1,004,598 1,003,899 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 304,312 304,312 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 28 28 28 28 28 28

  11. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    10,749 110,749 110,749 110,749 111,581 111,581 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,760 32,760 32,760 32,760 33,592 33,592 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 21 21 21 21 21 21

  12. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 4 4 4 4 4 4

  13. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    82,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 17 17 17 17 17 17

  14. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    21,723 221,723 221,723 221,722 221,722 221,722 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 107,600 107,600 107,572 107,571 107,571 107,571 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23 23

  15. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    742,627 742,627 749,867 749,867 749,867 749,867 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 452,359 452,359 457,530 457,530 457,530 457,530 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 19 19

  16. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 259,324 259,324 259,324 259,321 259,321 259,315 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 30 30 30 30 30 30

  17. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 9 9 9

  18. EIA - Electricity Generating Capacity

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

    Electricity Generating Capacity Release Date: January 3, 2013 | Next Release: August 2013 Year Existing Units by Energy Source Unit Additions Unit Retirements 2011 XLS XLS XLS 2010...

  19. Liquid heat capacity lasers

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Comaskey, Brian J. (Walnut Creek, CA); Scheibner, Karl F. (Tracy, CA); Ault, Earl R. (Livermore, CA)

    2007-05-01

    The heat capacity laser concept is extended to systems in which the heat capacity lasing media is a liquid. The laser active liquid is circulated from a reservoir (where the bulk of the media and hence waste heat resides) through a channel so configured for both optical pumping of the media for gain and for light amplification from the resulting gain.

  20. Knudsen heat capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Babac, Gulru; Reese, Jason M.

    2014-05-15

    We present a Knudsen heat capacity as a more appropriate and useful fluid property in micro/nanoscale gas systems than the constant pressure heat capacity. At these scales, different fluid processes come to the fore that are not normally observed at the macroscale. For thermodynamic analyses that include these Knudsen processes, using the Knudsen heat capacity can be more effective and physical. We calculate this heat capacity theoretically for non-ideal monatomic and diatomic gases, in particular, helium, nitrogen, and hydrogen. The quantum modification for para and ortho hydrogen is also considered. We numerically model the Knudsen heat capacity using molecular dynamics simulations for the considered gases, and compare these results with the theoretical ones.

  1. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Cokers Catalytic Crackers Hydrocrackers Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Table 8. Capacity and Fresh Feed Input to Selected Downstream Units at U.S. Refineries, 2013 - 2015 (Barrels per Calendar Day) Reformers Capacity Inputs 2013 2,596,369 5,681,643 1,887,024 2,302,764 4,810,611 1,669,540 2,600,518 3,405,017 74,900 543,800 41,500 47,537 387,148 33,255 PADD I 162,249 240,550 450,093 1,196,952 303,000 414,732 1,028,003 263,238 PADD II 648,603 818,718 1,459,176 2,928,673 981,114

  2. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2014

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

    Utah" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Intermountain Power Project","Coal","Los Angeles Department of Water & Power",1800 ...

  3. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Virginia" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Bath County","Pumped storage","Virginia Electric & Power Co",3003 2,"North ...

  4. WINDExchange: Potential Wind Capacity

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

    Potential Wind Capacity Potential wind capacity maps are provided for a 2014 industry standard wind turbine installed on a 110-m tower, which represents plausible current technology options, and a wind turbine on a 140-m tower, which represents near-future technology options. Enlarge image This map shows the wind potential at a 110-m height for the United States. Download a printable map. Click on a state to view the wind map for that state. * Grid Granularity = 400 sq km* 35% Gross Capacity

  5. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity is the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) report containing storage capacity data for crude oil, petroleum products, and selected biofuels. The report includes tables detailing working and net available shell storage capacity by type of facility, product, and Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PAD District). Net available shell storage capacity is broken down further to show the percent for exclusive use by facility operators and the percent leased to others. Crude oil storage capacity data are also provided for Cushing, Oklahoma, an important crude oil market center. Data are released twice each year near the end of May (data for March 31) and near the end of November (data for September 30).

  6. Iran outlines oil productive capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-11-09

    National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) tested production limits last month to prove a claim of 4 million bd capacity made at September's meeting of the organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Onshore fields account for 3.6 million bd of the total, with offshore fields providing the rest. NIOC plans to expand total capacity to 4.5 million bd by April 1993, consisting of 4 million b/d onshore and 500,000 b/d offshore. Middle East Economic Survey says questions remain about completion dates for gas injection, drilling, and offshore projects, but expansion targets are attainable within the scheduled time. NIOC said some slippage may be unavoidable, but it is confident the objective will be reached by third quarter 1993 at the latest. More than 60 rigs are working or about to be taken under contract to boost development drilling in onshore fields and provide gas injection in some. NIOC has spent $3.2 billion in foreign exchange on the drilling program in the last 2 1/2 years.

  7. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    39,210 41,309 43,673 46,900 46,900 46,900 1988-2014 Aquifers 39,210 41,309 43,673 46,900 46,900 46,900 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 0 0 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 23,514...

  8. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2

  9. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6

  10. 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...

  11. CSTI high capacity power

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Winter, J.M.

    1994-09-01

    The SP-100 program was established in 1983 by DOD, DOE, and NASA as a joint program to develop the technology necessary for space nuclear power systems for military and civil application. During FY86 and 87, the NASA SP-100 Advanced Technology Program was devised to maintain the momentum of promising technology advancement efforts started during Phase I of SP-100 and to strengthen, in key areas, the chances for successful development and growth capability of space nuclear reactor power systems for future space applications. In FY88, the Advanced Technology Program was incorporated into NASA`s new Civil Space Technology Initiative (CSTI). The CSTI Program was established to provide the foundation for technology development in automation and robotics, information, propulsion, and power. The CSTI High Capacity Power Program builds on the technology efforts of the SP-100 program, incorporates the previous NASA SP-100 Advanced Technology project, and provides a bridge to NASA Project Pathfinder. The elements of CSTI High Capacity Power development include Conversion Systems, Thermal Management, Power Management, System Diagnostics, and Environmental Interactions. Technology advancement in all areas, including materials, is required to assure the high reliability and 7 to 10 year lifetime demanded for future space nuclear power systems. The overall program will develop and demonstrate the technology base required to provide a wide range of modular power systems as well as allowing mission independence from solar and orbital attitude requirements. Several recent advancements in CSTI High Capacity power development will be discussed.

  12. Operation Schedule

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

    Operation Schedule Daily Hours of Operation

  13. Representation of Solar Capacity Value in the ReEDS Capacity Expansion Model

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sigrin, B.; Sullivan, P.; Ibanez, E.; Margolis, R.

    2014-03-01

    An important issue for electricity system operators is the estimation of renewables' capacity contributions to reliably meeting system demand, or their capacity value. While the capacity value of thermal generation can be estimated easily, assessment of wind and solar requires a more nuanced approach due to the resource variability. Reliability-based methods, particularly assessment of the Effective Load-Carrying Capacity, are considered to be the most robust and widely-accepted techniques for addressing this resource variability. This report compares estimates of solar PV capacity value by the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) capacity expansion model against two sources. The first comparison is against values published by utilities or other entities for known electrical systems at existing solar penetration levels. The second comparison is against a time-series ELCC simulation tool for high renewable penetration scenarios in the Western Interconnection. Results from the ReEDS model are found to compare well with both comparisons, despite being resolved at a super-hourly temporal resolution. Two results are relevant for other capacity-based models that use a super-hourly resolution to model solar capacity value. First, solar capacity value should not be parameterized as a static value, but must decay with increasing penetration. This is because -- for an afternoon-peaking system -- as solar penetration increases, the system's peak net load shifts to later in the day -- when solar output is lower. Second, long-term planning models should determine system adequacy requirements in each time period in order to approximate LOLP calculations. Within the ReEDS model we resolve these issues by using a capacity value estimate that varies by time-slice. Within each time period the net load and shadow price on ReEDS's planning reserve constraint signals the relative importance of additional firm capacity.

  14. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of September...

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

    for PAD District 2 and the U.S. total have been revised to correct a processing error that caused some capacity data to be double counted in the original release of this...

  15. Geothermal Capacity Could More than Double by 2020: Pike Research

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Increasing global investment in geothermal power could result in a 134% increase in total geothermal capacity between 2010 and 2020, according to a report released on March 7 by Pike Research.

  16. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Pipeline Capacity and Utilization

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

    Pipeline Utilization & Capacity About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity & Utilization Overview | Utilization Rates | Integration of Storage | Varying Rates of Utilization | Measures of Utilization Overview of Pipeline Utilization Natural gas pipeline companies prefer to operate their systems as close to full capacity as possible to maximize their revenues. However, the average

  17. Total Crude by Pipeline

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

    Product: Total Crude by All Transport Methods Domestic Crude by All Transport Methods Foreign Crude by All Transport Methods Total Crude by Pipeline Domestic Crude by Pipeline Foreign Crude by Pipeline Total Crude by Tanker Domestic Crude by Tanker Foreign Crude by Tanker Total Crude by Barge Domestic Crude by Barge Foreign Crude by Barge Total Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Domestic Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Foreign Crude by Tank Cars (Rail) Total Crude by Trucks Domestic Crude by Trucks Foreign

  18. ,"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...

  19. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1988-2014 Aquifers 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2008-2014...

  20. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 1988-2014 Aquifers 10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 3,040 3,656 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000...

  1. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Operable Date of Last Operation Date Shutdown Table 11. New, Shutdown and Reactivated Refineries During 2014 a b NEW PAD District II 19,000 Dakota Prairie Refining LLC Dickinson, ND 19,000 01/15 PAD District III 42,000 Kinder Morgan Crude & Condensate Galena Park, TX 42,000 01/15 SHUTDOWN PAD District I 28,000 0 Axeon Specialty Products LLC Savannah, GA 28,000 0 09/12 12/14 PAD District II 12,000 0 Ventura Refining & Transmission LLC Thomas, OK 12,000 0 10/10 12/14 PAD District III 0

  2. High-Rate, High-Capacity Binder-Free Electrode

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

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC High-Rate, High-Capacity Binder-Free Electrode Patent: PCT-09-41 Chunmei Ban ...

  3. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,200 0 NA NA 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 1,200 0 0 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 860 0 0 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 860 0 0 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1998-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  4. Excess Capacity from LADWP Control Area

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Excess Capacity from LADWP Control Area (LADWP, Glendale, Burbank) Summer 2001 1 in 2 1 in 5 1in 10 Total Load (CEC Draft Demand Forecast 10/16/2000 6,169 6,471 6,533 LADWP DSM Program (10) Sales LADWP to CDWR 77 LADWP to TID 51 6,287 6,589 6,651 (In-State and Out-of-State) Thermal LADWP (LADWP 2000 Integrated Resource Plan) 5.170 Burbank 313 Glendale 297 Self Generation - in LADWP Control Area 338 6.118 Allowance for outages (6%) (367) Total 5,751 LADWP Hydro 1,948 Firm Contracts and

  5. U.S. Fuel Ethanol Plant Production Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    All Petrolem Reports U.S. Fuel Ethanol Plant Production Capacity Release Date: June 23, 2015 | Next Release Date: June 2016 Previous Issues Year: 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Go This is the fifth release of U.S. Energy Information Administration data on fuel ethanol production capacity. EIA first reported fuel ethanol production capacities as of January 1, 2011 on November 29, 2011. This new report contains production capacity data for all operating U.S. fuel ethanol production plants as of January

  6. High capacity oil burner

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pedrosa, O.A. Jr.; Couto, N.C.; Fanqueiro, R.C.C.

    1983-11-01

    The present invention relates to a high capacity oil burner comprising a cylindrical atomizer completely surrounded by a protective cylindrical housing having a diameter from 2 to 3 times greater than the diameter of said atomizer; liquid fuels being injected under pressure into said atomizer and accumulating within said atomizer in a chamber for the accumulation of liquid fuels, and compressed air being injected into a chamber for the accumulation of air; cylindrical holes communicating said chamber for the accumulation of liquid fuels with the outside and cylindrical holes communicating said chamber for the accumulation of air with said cylindrical holes communicating the chamber for the accumulation of liquids with the outside so that the injection of compressed air into said liquid fuel discharge holes atomizes said fuel which is expelled to the outside through the end portions of said discharge holes which are circumferentially positioned to be burnt by a pilot flame; said protecting cylindrical housing having at its ends perforated circular rings into which water is injected under pressure to form a protecting fan-like water curtain at the rear end of the housing and a fan-like water curtain at the flame to reduce the formation of soot; the burning efficiency of said burner being superior to 30 barrels of liquid fuel per day/kg of the apparatus.

  7. An examination of the costs and critical characteristics of electric utility distribution system capacity enhancement projects

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Balducci, Patrick J.; Schienbein, Lawrence A.; Nguyen, Tony B.; Brown, Daryl R.; Fathelrahman, Eihab M.

    2004-06-01

    This report classifies and analyzes the capital and total costs (e.g., income tax, property tax, depreciation, centralized power generation, insurance premiums, and capital financing) associated with 130 electricity distribution system capacity enhancement projects undertaken during 1995-2002 or planned in the 2003-2011 time period by three electric power utilities operating in the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), in cooperation with participating utilities, has developed a large database of over 3,000 distribution system projects. The database includes brief project descriptions, capital cost estimates, the stated need for each project, and engineering data. The database was augmented by additional technical (e.g., line loss, existing substation capacities, and forecast peak demand for power in the area served by each project), cost (e.g., operations, maintenance, and centralized power generation costs), and financial (e.g., cost of capital, insurance premiums, depreciations, and tax rates) data. Though there are roughly 3,000 projects in the database, the vast majority were not included in this analysis because they either did not clearly enhance capacity or more information was needed, and not available, to adequately conduct the cost analyses. For the 130 projects identified for this analysis, capital cost frequency distributions were constructed, and expressed in terms of dollars per kVA of additional capacity. The capital cost frequency distributions identify how the projects contained within the database are distributed across a broad cost spectrum. Furthermore, the PNNL Energy Cost Analysis Model (ECAM) was used to determine the full costs (e.g., capital, operations and maintenance, property tax, income tax, depreciation, centralized power generation costs, insurance premiums and capital financing) associated with delivering electricity to customers, once again expressed in terms of costs per kVA of additional capacity. The projects were sorted into eight categories (capacitors, load transfer, new feeder, new line, new substation, new transformer, reconductoring, and substation capacity increase) and descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, total cost, number of observations, and standard deviation) were constructed for each project type. Furthermore, statistical analysis has been performed using ordinary least squares regression analysis to identify how various project variables (e.g., project location, the primary customer served by the project, the type of project, the reason for the upgrade, size of the upgrade) impact the unit cost of the project.

  8. CHP Installed Capacity Optimizer Software

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-11-30

    The CHP Installed Capacity Optimizer is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet application that determines the most economic amount of capacity of distributed generation and thermal utilization equipment (e.g., absorption chillers) to install for any user-defined set of load and cost data. Installing the optimum amount of capacity is critical to the life-cycle economic viability of a distributed generation/cooling heat and power (CHP) application. Using advanced optimization algorithms, the software accesses the loads, utility tariffs, equipment costs,more » etc., and provides to the user the most economic amount of system capacity to install.« less

  9. Property:USGSMeanCapacity | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    USGSMeanCapacity Jump to: navigation, search Property Name USGSMeanCapacity Property Type String Description Mean capacity potential at location based on the USGS 2008 Geothermal...

  10. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    of capacity that may understate the amount that can actually be stored. Working Gas Design Capacity: This measure estimates a natural gas facility's working gas capacity, as...

  11. U.S. Downstream Charge Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries

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

    Day, Except Where Noted) Area: U.S. PAD District 1 Delaware Florida Georgia Maryland New Jersey New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia PAD District 2 Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Tennessee Wisconsin PAD District 3 Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico Texas PAD District 4 Colorado Montana Utah Wyoming PAD District 5 Alaska Arizona California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington Guam Puerto Rico Virgin

  12. U.S. Production Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries

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

    Day, Except Where Noted) Area: U.S. PAD District 1 Delaware Florida Georgia Maryland New Jersey New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Virginia West Virginia PAD District 2 Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Tennessee Wisconsin PAD District 3 Alabama Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico Texas PAD District 4 Colorado Montana Utah Wyoming PAD District 5 Alaska Arizona California Hawaii Nevada Oregon Washington Guam Puerto Rico Virgin

  13. AGA totes up new U. S. gas-pipeline mileage, storage capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-04

    More than 8,000 miles of new US natural-gas transmission line or pipeline looping have been built, are under construction, or are proposed in 1993--94, the American Gas Association, Arlington, Va., states in its latest annual report on new construction. Additionally, AGA lists 47 proposed natural-gas storage projects in various stages of development to add more than 500 bcf of working-gas storage capacity and, if constructed, would increase total US working-gas storage capacity by nearly 20%. Throughout 1993 and 1994, more than $9 billion of new gas-pipeline construction projects have been in various stages of development. AGA classifies these projects as either built in 1993 or 1994 and operational, or currently under construction, or proposed and pending. In aggregate, the projects total 8,087 miles of new pipeline and pipeline looping, 1,098,940 hp of additional compression, and 15.3 bcfd of additional capacity. A table shows the regional breakout.

  14. EIS-0171: Pacificorp Capacity Sale

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) EIS assesses the proposed action of providing surplus power from its facilites to PacifiCorp in response to its request for a continued supply of firm capacity. BPA has surplus electrical capacity (peakload energy) that BPA projects will not be required to meet its existing obligations.

  15. Reductive Capacity Measurement of Waste Forms for Secondary Radioactive Wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Um, Wooyong; Yang, Jungseok; Serne, R. Jeffrey; Westsik, Joseph H.

    2015-09-28

    The reductive capacities of dry ingredients and final solid waste forms were measured using both the Cr(VI) and Ce(IV) methods and the results were compared. Blast furnace slag (BFS), sodium sulfide, SnF2, and SnCl2 used as dry ingredients to make various waste forms showed significantly higher reductive capacities compared to other ingredients regardless of which method was used. Although the BFS exhibits appreciable reductive capacity, it requires greater amounts of time to fully react. In almost all cases, the Ce(IV) method yielded larger reductive capacity values than those from the Cr(VI) method and can be used as an upper bound for the reductive capacity of the dry ingredients and waste forms, because the Ce(IV) method subjects the solids to a strong acid (low pH) condition that dissolves much more of the solids. Because the Cr(VI) method relies on a neutral pH condition, the Cr(VI) method can be used to estimate primarily the waste form surface-related and readily dissolvable reductive capacity. However, the Cr(VI) method does not measure the total reductive capacity of the waste form, the long-term reductive capacity afforded by very slowly dissolving solids, or the reductive capacity present in the interior pores and internal locations of the solids.

  16. 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...

  17. ,"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...

  18. ,"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...

  19. ,"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"...

  20. 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...

  1. 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*...

  2. ,"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...

  3. ,"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...

  4. U.S. Refinery Utilization and Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History Gross Input to Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Units 17,178 16,963 16,394 15,690 16,673 16,848 1985-2015 Operable Capacity (Calendar Day) 18,058 18,059 18,125 18,125 18,172 18,186 1985-2015 Operating 17,923 17,939 18,015 17,932 17,846 18,044 1985-2015 Idle 135 121 110 194 326 142 1985-2015 Operable Utilization Rate (%) 95.1 93.9 90.5 86.6 91.8 92.6 1985-2015 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  5. U.S. Refinery Utilization and Capacity

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

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Gross Input to Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Units 15,177 15,289 15,373 15,724 16,156 16,433 1985-2015 Operable Capacity (Calendar Day) 17,575 17,736 17,328 17,818 17,873 18,026 1985-2015 Operating 16,911 16,991 16,656 17,282 17,626 17,792 1985-2015 Idle 663 745 672 536 247 234 1985-2015 Operable Utilization Rate (%) 86.4 86.2 88.7 88.3 90.4 91.2 1985-2015 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  6. 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.

  7. Summary Max Total Units

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  8. Increasing the Capacity of Existing Power Lines

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Continued next page In the continental United States, some 500 power companies operate a complex network of more than 160,000 miles of high-voltage trans- mission lines known as "the grid." The capacity of the grid has been largely unchanged for decades and needs to expand to accommodate new power plants and renewable energy projects. The difference in time and cost between using existing transmission lines or the construction of new ones can make or break plans

  9. COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY

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

    COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY Empowering Communities in the Age of E-Government Prepared by Melinda Downing, Environmental Justice Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy MAR 06 MARCH 2006 Since 1999, the Department of Energy has worked with the National Urban Internet and others to create community capacity through technology.  Empowering Communities in the Age of E-Government Table of Contents Message from the Environmental Justice Program Manager . . . . . . . . 3

  10. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 431,137 431,086 433,110 434,179 433,214 433,214 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 942 938 938 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 431,137 431,086 433,110 433,236 432,276 432,276 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 51 51 51 51 51 51 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1 1 2012-2014 Depleted Fields

  11. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    766,768 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 182,725 196,140 224,955 246,310 253,220 254,136 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 584,042 587,439 587,439 584,881 588,852 579,988 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 504,524 509,961 532,336 533,336 541,161 528,485 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 123,664 130,621 152,102 164,439 168,143 167,546 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 380,859 379,340 380,234 368,897 373,018 360,938 2008-2014 Total Number of

  12. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    20,368 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 6,567 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 210,801 212,184 212,184 212,184 212,156 215,156 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 103,484 107,600 107,600 107,600 107,600 107,600 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 4,619 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 96,855 100,971 100,971 100,971 100,971 102,981 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23

  13. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    51,968 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 224,129 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 528,626 528,626 528,626 402,626 520,900 520,900 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 369,031 384,864 397,627 412,482 446,713 454,140 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 84,487 100,320 111,849 200,702 154,333 161,260 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 284,544 284,544 285,779 211,780 292,380 292,880 2008-2014 Total Number of

  14. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    4,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  15. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    210,128 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 181,810 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 147,827 153,227 149,789 149,789 149,789 149,659 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 108,978 127,248 131,091 168,602 180,654 201,250 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 43,758 56,928 62,932 100,443 109,495 130,333 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 65,220 70,320 68,159 68,159 71,159 70,917 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields

  16. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,508 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 197,508 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  17. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    129,480 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 11,980 11,980 4,265 4,265 4,265 4,265 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 117,500 117,500 120,200 120,200 120,200 120,200 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 52,198 52,189 54,889 54,898 54,898 54,898 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 948 939 939 948 948 948 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 51,250 51,250 53,950 53,950 53,950 53,950 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3 1989-2014 Aquifers 2 2

  18. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    111,120 111,120 106,764 124,937 157,985 157,985 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 10,000 10,000 6,733 6,705 6,705 6,705 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 101,120 101,120 100,030 118,232 151,280 151,280 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 42,140 42,134 41,284 48,705 73,705 73,705 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 836 830 830 836 836 836 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 41,304 41,304 40,454 47,869 72,869 72,869 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 8 8 8 9 9 9 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1

  19. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    4,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,619 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 13,619 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  20. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 89,100 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 89,100 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 55,300 59,000 59,000 63,300 59,738 59,738 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 55,300 59,000 59,000 63,300 59,738 59,738 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  1. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    245,579 245,579 245,579 245,579 245,779 245,779 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 2,340 2,340 2,340 0 2,340 2,340 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 243,239 243,239 243,239 245,579 243,439 243,439 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 128,976 128,976 128,976 129,026 129,551 129,551 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 1,450 1,450 1,450 0 1,450 1,450 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 127,526 127,526 127,526 129,026 128,101 128,101 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  2. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 225,154 228,350 230,350 230,350 230,828 230,828 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 225,154 228,350 230,350 230,350 230,828 230,828 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  3. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    371,338 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 170 170 170 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 371,338 371,338 372,838 370,668 370,365 375,765 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 176,868 179,858 183,358 180,858 181,055 188,455 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 31 31 31 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 176,868 179,858 183,358 180,828 181,025 188,425 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1 1 2012-2014 Depleted

  4. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,510 15,935 15,935 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,510 15,935 15,935 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  5. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 12,000 12,000 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 587,711 587,711 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 374,296 374,296 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 10,000 10,000 2009-2014 Depleted Fields 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 364,296 364,296 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 14 14 14 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0

  6. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 10 10 10 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 9 9 9 10 10 10

  7. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    989,454 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 974,362 978,624 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 103,606 218,106 220,070 220,070 25,920 25,923 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 303,761 303,500 302,385 302,962 303,312 304,312 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 252,344 216,132 215,017 215,594 291,544 292,544 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 51,418 87,368 87,368 87,368 11,768 11,768 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing

  8. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    114,274 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 80,746 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 32,946 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,157 32,982 33,024 33,024 33,024 33,024 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 19,367 19,437 19,479 19,215 19,215 19,215 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 12,791 13,545 13,545 13,809 13,809 13,809 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 22 22 22 22 22 22

  9. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    82,300 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,974 282,984 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 931 931 931 931 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 281,370 283,891 283,800 283,974 283,974 282,984 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 119,339 123,190 123,225 123,343 122,970 122,980 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 375 375 375 375 0 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 118,964 122,814 122,850 122,968 122,970 122,980 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 18 17 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 1 1 1 1 0

  10. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  11. 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...

  12. 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 Aerosols, Atmospheric Carbon 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

  13. Spray dryer capacity stretched 50%

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paraskevas, J.

    1983-01-01

    This article describes plant equipment modifications which has resulted in a 50% increase in spray drying capacity. The installation of a new atomizer and screening system in NL Chemicals' Newberry Springs plant which produces natural clays for use as rheological additives in industrial coatings, cosmetics and other products, resulted in a 50% increase in spray drying capacity. Energy consumption per pound of product was reduced by 7%, and product quality improved. This was achieved in less than three months at an investment of less than 10% of what an additional spray dryer would have cost.

  14. "Table A47. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy...

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

    Products",806,6.7,2.7,0.2,7.7,5 2011," Meat Packing Plants",439.4,6.5,1.1," W ",4,9.3 ...oducts",513.7,4,1.7," W "," W ",6.7 2011," Meat Packing Plants",290.6,4.1,0.7,0," W ",17.9 ...

  15. "Table A8. Selected Energy Operating Ratios for Total Energy...

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

    Products",704,6.3,2.4,"W",8.7,6.1 2011," Meat Packing Plants",418.5,8.1,1,"W",7.9,4.8 ... Products",473.6,3.9,1.7,"*",30,10 2011," Meat Packing Plants",256.9,5.3,0.9,"W","W",13.3 ...

  16. California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  17. Worldwide Energy Efficiency Action through Capacity Building...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Capacity Building and Training (WEACT) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: Worldwide Energy Efficiency Action through Capacity Building and Training (WEACT) Name Worldwide...

  18. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Capacity Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity Released: September 3, 2010 for data as of April 2010 Next Release: August 2011 References Methodology Definitions...

  19. Washington Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  20. Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  1. Pennsylvania Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May...

  2. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity With Data for September 2015 | Release ... Containing storage capacity data for crude oil, petroleum products, and selected biofuels. ...

  3. Property:Capacity | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Capacity Jump to: navigation, search Property Name Capacity Property Type Quantity Description Potential electric energy generation, default units of megawatts. Use this property...

  4. 21 briefing pages total

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

    1 briefing pages total p. 1 Reservist Differential Briefing U.S. Office of Personnel Management December 11, 2009 p. 2 Agenda - Introduction of Speakers - Background - References/Tools - Overview of Reservist Differential Authority - Qualifying Active Duty Service and Military Orders - Understanding Military Leave and Earnings Statements p. 3 Background 5 U.S.C. 5538 (Section 751 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, March 11, 2009) (Public Law 111-8) Law requires OPM to consult with DOD Law

  5. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    District of Columbia" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"US GSA Heating and Transmission","Natural gas","US GSA Heating and Transmission",9

  6. winter_capacity_2010.xls

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

    Table 4.B Winter Net Internal Demand, Capacity Resources, and Capacity Margins by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region, 2001-2010 Actual, 2011-2015 Projected (Megawatts and Percent) Interconnection NERC Regional Assesment Area 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/ 2011 2011/2012E 2012/2013E 2013/2014E 2014/2015E 2015/2016E FRCC 39,699 42,001 36,229 41,449 42,493 45,993 46,093 45,042 51,703 45,954 44,196 44,750 45,350

  7. High capacity carbon dioxide sorbent

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Dietz, Steven Dean; Alptekin, Gokhan; Jayaraman, Ambalavanan

    2015-09-01

    The present invention provides a sorbent for the removal of carbon dioxide from gas streams, comprising: a CO.sub.2 capacity of at least 9 weight percent when measured at 22.degree. C. and 1 atmosphere; an H.sub.2O capacity of at most 15 weight percent when measured at 25.degree. C. and 1 atmosphere; and an isosteric heat of adsorption of from 5 to 8.5 kilocalories per mole of CO.sub.2. The invention also provides a carbon sorbent in a powder, a granular or a pellet form for the removal of carbon dioxide from gas streams, comprising: a carbon content of at least 90 weight percent; a nitrogen content of at least 1 weight percent; an oxygen content of at most 3 weight percent; a BET surface area from 50 to 2600 m.sup.2/g; and a DFT micropore volume from 0.04 to 0.8 cc/g.

  8. High capacity immobilized amine sorbents

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gray, McMahan L.; Champagne, Kenneth J.; Soong, Yee; Filburn, Thomas

    2007-10-30

    A method is provided for making low-cost CO.sub.2 sorbents that can be used in large-scale gas-solid processes. The improved method entails treating an amine to increase the number of secondary amine groups and impregnating the amine in a porous solid support. The method increases the CO.sub.2 capture capacity and decreases the cost of utilizing an amine-enriched solid sorbent in CO.sub.2 capture systems.

  9. Total 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

  10. An assessment of the Tongonan geothermal reservoir, Philippines, at high-pressure operating conditions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sarmiento, Z.F.; Aquino, B.G.; Aunzo, Z.P.; Rodis, N.O.; Saw, V.S.

    1993-10-01

    An evaluation of the Tongonan geothermal reservoir was conducted to improve the power recovery through reservoir and process optimization. The performance of the existing production wells was reviewed and the response of the field based on the anticipated production levels was simulated at various operating conditions. The results indicate that the Tongonan geothermal reservoir can be exploited at a high pressure operating condition with substantial improvement in the field capacity. The authors calculate that the Upper Mahiao and the Malitbog sectors of the Tongonan field are capable of generating 395 MWe at 1.0 MPa abs., on top of the existing 112.5 MWe plant, compared with 275 MWe if the field is operated at 0.6 MPa abs. The total capacity for the proposed Leyte A 640 MWe expansion can be generated from these sectors with the additional power to be tapped from Mahanagdong and Alto Peak sectors.

  11. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0 0 10 8 2 1 4 5 39 10 PAY PLAN SES 2 EJ/EK 3 EN 04 1 NN (Engineering) 20 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 53 Associate Administrator for Emergency Operations (NA-40) As of March 21, 2015 DIVERSITY 79 55 69.6% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 30.4% SES EJ/EK EN 04 NN NQ 2.5% 3.8% 1.3% 25.3% 67.1% 0.0% 0.0% 12.7% 10.1% 2.5% 1.3% 5.1% 6.3% 49.4% 12.7% SUPERVISORS DISABILITY 7

  12. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    6 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 0 0 10 9 2 1 4 5 39 11 PAY PLAN SES 2 EJ/EK 3 EN 04 2 NN (Engineering) 18 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 56 DIVERSITY 81 55 67.9% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic White 32.1% Associate Administrator for Emergency Operations (NA-40) As of September 5, 2015 SES EJ/EK EN 04 NN NQ 2.5% 3.7% 2.5% 22.2% 69.1% 0.0% 0.0% 12.3% 11.1% 2.5% 1.2% 4.9% 6.2% 48.1% 13.6% Prepared by NNSA Office of

  13. TOTAL WORKFORCE Males

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 Females Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 1 1 1 6 3 2 7 5 52 20 PAY PLAN SES 3 EJ/EK 4 EN 05 12 EN 04 9 EN 03 2 EN 00 3 NN (Engineering) 42 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 22 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 White 34.7% Associate Administrator for Safety, Infrastructure and Operations (NA-50) As of September 5, 2015 DIVERSITY 98 64 65.3% American Indian Alaska Native African American Asian American Pacific Islander Hispanic SES EJ/EK EN 05 EN 04 EN 03 EN 00 NN NQ NU 3.1% 4.1% 12.2%

  14. U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 4,491,557 4,491,226 4,491,596 4,502,901 4,514,569 4,526,987 4,530,486 4,540,575 4,567,586 4,577,649 4,575,112 4,576,356 2013 4,567,566 4,628,787 4,652,018 4,640,880 4,665,310 4,669,698 4,699,349 4,717,265 4,745,659 4,750,673 4,748,937 4,748,636 2014 4,743,198 4,741,378 4,741,585 4,740,958 4,749,560 4,755,665 4,764,979 4,771,870 4,770,241 4,772,138 4,784,895 4,785,669 2015 4,793,631 4,792,829 4,792,559 4,792,746 4,792,790

  15. ,"U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290us2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2/26/2016 2:28:52 PM" "Back to

  16. ,"U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290us2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290us2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2/26/2016 2:28:52 PM" "Back to

  17. U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 4,211,193 4,327,844 2010's 4,410,224 4,483,650 4,576,356 4,748,636 4,785,669

  18. U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 4,491,557 4,491,226 4,491,596 4,502,901 4,514,569 4,526,987 4,530,486 4,540,575 4,567,586 4,577,649 4,575,112 4,576,356 2013 4,567,566 4,628,787 4,652,018 4,640,880 4,665,310 4,669,698 4,699,349 4,717,265 4,745,659 4,750,673 4,748,937 4,748,636 2014 4,743,198 4,741,378 4,741,585 4,740,958 4,749,560 4,755,665 4,764,979 4,771,870 4,770,241 4,772,138 4,784,895 4,785,669 2015 4,793,631 4,792,829 4,792,559 4,792,746 4,792,790

  19. U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 8,124,067 8,120,142 1990's 7,794,083 7,993,265 7,931,513 7,988,856 8,042,830 7,952,610 7,980,400 8,331,879 8,178,889 8,229,259 2000's 8,240,886 8,182,248 8,207,074 8,205,716 8,255,042 8,268,443 8,329,967 8,402,216 8,498,535 8,655,740 2010's 8,763,798 8,849,125 8,991,335 9,172,951 9,233,352

  20. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,069,405 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 1,065,583 1,066,064 1,071,638 1,075,145 1,075,590 1,075,629 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 666,636 667,065 672,632 673,200 674,967 675,003 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 2,150 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 664,486 664,906 670,473 671,041 672,808 672,844 2008-2014 Total Number of

  1. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 2009-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 1 1 1 1 1 1

  2. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6,900 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,400 43,600 1995-2014 Salt Caverns 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 30,100 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 11,000 11,000 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 20,900 25,150 27,350 27,350 27,350 33,150 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 11,900 16,150 16,150 16,150 16,150 21,950 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 9,000 9,000 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1995-2014 Salt

  3. TotalView Training 2015

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

    TotalView Training 2015 TotalView Training 2015 NERSC will host an in-depth training course on TotalView, a graphical parallel debugger developed by Rogue Wave Software, on...

  4. Tri-Laboratory Linux Capacity Cluster 2007 SOW

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Seager, M

    2007-03-22

    The Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) Program (formerly know as Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative, ASCI) has led the world in capability computing for the last ten years. Capability computing is defined as a world-class platform (in the Top10 of the Top500.org list) with scientific simulations running at scale on the platform. Example systems are ASCI Red, Blue-Pacific, Blue-Mountain, White, Q, RedStorm, and Purple. ASC applications have scaled to multiple thousands of CPUs and accomplished a long list of mission milestones on these ASC capability platforms. However, the computing demands of the ASC and Stockpile Stewardship programs also include a vast number of smaller scale runs for day-to-day simulations. Indeed, every 'hero' capability run requires many hundreds to thousands of much smaller runs in preparation and post processing activities. In addition, there are many aspects of the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) that can be directly accomplished with these so-called 'capacity' calculations. The need for capacity is now so great within the program that it is increasingly difficult to allocate the computer resources required by the larger capability runs. To rectify the current 'capacity' computing resource shortfall, the ASC program has allocated a large portion of the overall ASC platforms budget to 'capacity' systems. In addition, within the next five to ten years the Life Extension Programs (LEPs) for major nuclear weapons systems must be accomplished. These LEPs and other SSP programmatic elements will further drive the need for capacity calculations and hence 'capacity' systems as well as future ASC capability calculations on 'capability' systems. To respond to this new workload analysis, the ASC program will be making a large sustained strategic investment in these capacity systems over the next ten years, starting with the United States Government Fiscal Year 2007 (GFY07). However, given the growing need for 'capability' systems as well, the budget demands are extreme and new, more cost effective ways of fielding these systems must be developed. This Tri-Laboratory Linux Capacity Cluster (TLCC) procurement represents the ASC first investment vehicle in these capacity systems. It also represents a new strategy for quickly building, fielding and integrating many Linux clusters of various sizes into classified and unclassified production service through a concept of Scalable Units (SU). The programmatic objective is to dramatically reduce the overall Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of these 'capacity' systems relative to the best practices in Linux Cluster deployments today. This objective only makes sense in the context of these systems quickly becoming very robust and useful production clusters under the crushing load that will be inflicted on them by the ASC and SSP scientific simulation capacity workload.

  5. The NASA CSTI High Capacity Power Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Winter, J.; Dudenhoefer, J.; Juhasz, A.; Schwarze, G.; Patterson, R.; Ferguson, D.; Titran, R.; Schmitz, P.; Vandersande, J.

    1994-09-01

    The SP-100 Space Nuclear Power Program was established in 1983 by DOD, DOE, and NASA as a joint program to develop technology for military and civil applications. Starting in 1986, NASA has funded a technology program to maintain the momentum of promising aerospace technology advancement started during Phase I of SP-100 and to strengthen, in key areas, the changes for successful development and growth capability of space nuclear reactor power systems for a wide range of future space applications. The elements of the CSTI High Capacity Power Project include Systems Analysis, Stirling Power Conversion, Thermoelectric Power Conversion, Thermal Management, Power Management, Systems Diagnostics, Environmental Interactions, and Material/Structural Development. Technology advancement in all elements is required to provide the growth capability, high reliability and 7 to 10 year lifetime demanded for future space nuclear power systems. The overall project with develop and demonstrate the technology base required to provide a wide range of modular power systems compatible with the SP-100 reactor which facilitates operation during lunar and planetary day/night cycles as well as allowing spacecraft operation at any attitude or distance from the sun. Significant accomplishments in all of the project elements will be presented, along with revised goals and project timelines recently developed.

  6. U.S. Refining Capacity Utilization

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1995-01-01

    This article briefly reviews recent trends in domestic refining capacity utilization and examines in detail the differences in reported crude oil distillation capacities and utilization rates among different classes of refineries.

  7. California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity...

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

    Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award August 19, 2013 - 10:17am ...

  8. Plug and Process Loads Capacity and Power Requirements Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sheppy, M.; Gentile-Polese, L.

    2014-09-01

    This report addresses gaps in actionable knowledge that would help reduce the plug load capacities designed into buildings. Prospective building occupants and real estate brokers lack accurate references for plug and process load (PPL) capacity requirements, so they often request 5-10 W/ft2 in their lease agreements. Limited initial data, however, suggest that actual PPL densities in leased buildings are substantially lower. Overestimating PPL capacity leads designers to oversize electrical infrastructure and cooling systems. Better guidance will enable improved sizing and design of these systems, decrease upfront capital costs, and allow systems to operate more energy efficiently. The main focus of this report is to provide industry with reliable, objective third-party guidance to address the information gap in typical PPL densities for commercial building tenants. This could drive changes in negotiations about PPL energy demands.

  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. T10K Change Max Capacity

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2013-08-16

    This command line utility will enable/disable the Oracle StorageTek T10000 tape drive's maximum capacity feature.

  11. DOE Transmission Capacity Report | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Transmission Capacity Report DOE Transmission Capacity Report DOE Transmission Capacity Report: Transmission lines, substations, circuit breakers, capacitors, and other equipment provide more than just a highway to deliver energy and power from generating units to distribution systems. Transmission systems both complement and substitute for generation. Transmission generally enhances reliability; lowers the cost of electricity delivered to consumers; limits the ability of generators to exercise

  12. East Coast (PADD 1) Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries

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

    3 14 11 11 10 9 1982-2015 Operating 10 10 8 10 9 9 1982-2015 Idle 3 4 3 1 1 0 1982-2015 Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Operable (Barrels per Calendar Day) 1,397,300 1,617,500 1,188,200 1,293,200 1,296,500 1,268,500 1982-2015 Operating 1,257,300 1,205,000 1,010,200 1,265,200 1,268,500 1,236,500 1982-2015 Idle 140,000 412,500 178,000 28,000 28,000 32,000 1982-2015 Operable (Barrels per Stream Day) 1,478,300 1,708,500 1,254,700 1,361,700 1,364,000 1,332,000 1982-2015 Operating

  13. U.S. Total Exports

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

    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 Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total to Japan Cameron, LA Freeport, TX Kenai, AK Port Nikiski, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Mexico Douglas, AZ Nogales, AZ Sasabe, AZ Calexico, CA Ogilby Mesa, CA Otay Mesa, CA San

  14. U.S. Total Exports

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

    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 Freeport, TX Sabine Pass, LA Total to Japan Cameron, LA Kenai, AK Sabine Pass, LA Total to Mexico Douglas, AZ Nogales, AZ Sasabe, AZ Calexico, CA Ogilby Mesa, CA Otay Mesa, CA Alamo, TX Clint, TX Del Rio, TX Eagle Pass,

  15. SPEAR Operations

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

    Operations SPEAR Status SPEAR Status SPEAR Status Web Message Management (authorized access only) ED's stuff Run statistic (preliminary and unofficial) Training Sessions 10/20/03 rev-3 The schedule of talks listed below have a machine operations focus and are intended for operators, physicists and support personnel who will participate in SPEAR3 commissioning and operation. The talks are video taped and stored in the control room along with any pertinent hardcopies for future reference. Date

  16. 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...

  17. Nuclear reactor characteristics and operational history

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2. Ownership Data, Table 3. Characteristics and Operational History Table 1. Nuclear Reactor, State, Type, Net Capacity, Generation, and Capacity Factor PDF XLS Plant/Reactor Name Generator ID State Type 2009 Summer Capacity Net MW(e)1 2010 Annual Generation Net MWh2 Capacity Factor Percent3 Arkansas Nuclear One 1 AR PWR 842 6,607,090 90 Arkansas Nuclear One 2 AR PWR 993 8,415,588 97 Beaver Valley 1 PA PWR 892 7,119,413 91 Beaver Valley 2 PA PWR 885 7,874,151 102 Braidwood Generation Station 1

  18. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Delaware" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Hay Road","Natural gas","Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation LLC",1136 2,"Edge Moor","Natural gas","Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation LLC",725 3,"Indian River Generating Station","Coal","Indian River Operations Inc",591.4 4,"Delaware City Plant","Other

  19. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Texas" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"W A Parish","Coal","NRG Texas Power LLC",3675 2,"South Texas Project","Nuclear","STP Nuclear Operating Co",2560 3,"Martin Lake","Coal","Luminant Generation Company LLC",2410 4,"Comanche Peak","Nuclear","Luminant Generation Company LLC",2400

  20. Improving Power System Modeling. A Tool to Link Capacity Expansion and Production Cost Models

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Diakov, Victor; Cole, Wesley; Sullivan, Patrick; Brinkman, Gregory; Margolis, Robert

    2015-11-01

    Capacity expansion models (CEM) provide a high-level long-term view at the prospects of the evolving power system. In simulating the possibilities of long-term capacity expansion, it is important to maintain the viability of power system operation in the short-term (daily, hourly and sub-hourly) scales. Production-cost models (PCM) simulate routine power system operation on these shorter time scales using detailed load, transmission and generation fleet data by minimizing production costs and following reliability requirements. When based on CEM 'predictions' about generating unit retirements and buildup, PCM provide more detailed simulation for the short-term system operation and, consequently, may confirm the validity of capacity expansion predictions. Further, production cost model simulations of a system that is based on capacity expansion model solution are 'evolutionary' sound: the generator mix is the result of logical sequence of unit retirement and buildup resulting from policy and incentives. The above has motivated us to bridge CEM with PCM by building a capacity expansion - to - production cost model Linking Tool (CEPCoLT). The Linking Tool is built to onset capacity expansion model prescriptions onto production cost model inputs. NREL's ReEDS and Energy Examplar's PLEXOS are the capacity expansion and the production cost models, respectively. Via the Linking Tool, PLEXOS provides details of operation for the regionally-defined ReEDS scenarios.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    111.1 24.5 1,090 902 341 872 780 441 Census Region and Division Northeast............................................. 20.6 6.7 1,247 1,032 Q 811 788 147 New England.................................... 5.5 1.9 1,365 1,127 Q 814 748 107 Middle Atlantic.................................. 15.1 4.8 1,182 978 Q 810 800 159 Midwest................................................ 25.6 4.6 1,349 1,133 506 895 810 346 East North Central............................ 17.7 3.2 1,483 1,239 560 968 842 351

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Q Table HC3.2 Living Space Characteristics by Owner-Occupied Housing Units, 2005 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Million U.S. Housing Units Owner- Occupied Housing Units (millions) Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units Apartments in Buildings With-- Living Space Characteristics Detached Attached Energy Information Administration 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Table HC3.2 Living Space

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Q Million U.S. Housing Units Renter- Occupied Housing Units (millions) Type of Renter-Occupied Housing Unit U.S. Housing Units (millions Single-Family Units Apartments in Buildings With-- Living Space Characteristics Detached Attached 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 Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Million U.S. Housing

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 Most-Used Personal Computer Type of PC Desk-top Model.................................. 58.6 7.6 14.2 13.1 9.2 14.6 5.0 14.5 Laptop Model...................................... 16.9 2.0 3.8 3.3 2.1 5.7 1.3 3.5 Hours Turned on Per Week Less than 2 Hours..............................

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ,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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................ 17.8 5.3 4.7 2.8 1.9 3.1 3.6 7.5 Have Cooling Equipment............................. 93.3 21.5 24.1 17.8 11.2 18.8 13.0 31.1 Use Cooling Equipment.............................. 91.4 21.0 23.5 17.4 11.0 18.6 12.6 30.3 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............. 1.9 0.5 0.6 0.4 Q Q 0.5 0.8 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.......................................... 65.9 11.0 16.5 13.5 8.7 16.1 6.4 17.2 Without a Heat

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    78.1 64.1 4.2 1.8 2.3 5.7 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment..................... 17.8 11.3 9.3 0.6 Q 0.4 0.9 Have Cooling Equipment................................. 93.3 66.8 54.7 3.6 1.7 1.9 4.8 Use Cooling Equipment.................................. 91.4 65.8 54.0 3.6 1.7 1.9 4.7 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................. 1.9 1.1 0.8 Q N Q Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.............................................. 65.9 51.7 43.9 2.5 0.7 1.6 3.1 Without a Heat

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    33.0 8.0 3.4 5.9 14.4 1.2 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment..................... 17.8 6.5 1.6 0.9 1.3 2.4 0.2 Have Cooling Equipment................................. 93.3 26.5 6.5 2.5 4.6 12.0 1.0 Use Cooling Equipment.................................. 91.4 25.7 6.3 2.5 4.4 11.7 0.8 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it................. 1.9 0.8 Q Q 0.2 0.3 Q Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.............................................. 65.9 14.1 3.6 1.5 2.1 6.4 0.6 Without a Heat

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    . 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Type of 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    15.1 5.5 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 Q Q Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 20.5 15.1 5.4 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 20.5 15.1 5.4 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 N N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 11.4 9.1 2.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 6.1 5.3 0.8 For One Housing

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 0.7 Q 0.7 Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 23.4 7.5 16.0 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 22.9 7.4 15.4 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 0.6 Q 0.5 Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 14.7 4.6 10.1 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7 11.4 4.0 7.4 For One

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Do Not Have Space Heating Equipment............... 1.2 0.7 Q 0.2 Q Have Main Space Heating Equipment.................. 109.8 46.3 18.9 22.5 22.1 Use Main Space Heating Equipment.................... 109.1 45.6 18.8 22.5 22.1 Have Equipment But Do Not Use It...................... 0.8 0.7 Q N N Main Heating Fuel and Equipment Natural Gas.......................................................... 58.2 27.0 11.9 14.9 4.3 Central Warm-Air Furnace................................ 44.7

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... 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 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 Type of Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.......................................................... 65.9 6.0 5.2 0.8 Without a Heat

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Do Not Have Cooling Equipment................................... 17.8 1.8 Q Q 4.9 Have Cooling Equipment................................................ 93.3 5.3 7.0 7.8 7.2 Use Cooling Equipment................................................. 91.4 5.3 7.0 7.7 6.6 Have Equipment But Do Not Use it............................... 1.9 Q N Q 0.6 Air-Conditioning Equipment 1, 2 Central System.............................................................. 65.9 1.1 6.4 6.4 5.4 Without a

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ..... 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

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

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

    ... 2.0 0.4 Q 0.3 Basements Basement in Single-Family Homes and Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings Yes......

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Housing Units Living Space Characteristics Attached 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Homes Apartments in Buildings With-- Housing Units (millions) Single-Family Units Detached...

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

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

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

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

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

    ... 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 ...

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

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

    ... 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 ...

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

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

    ... 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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    ... Table HC13.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by South Census Region, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units South Census Region Home Appliances Usage Indicators South Atlantic East ...

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

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

    ... Table HC8.10 Home Appliances Usage Indicators by UrbanRural Location, 2005 Million U.S. Housing Units UrbanRural Location (as Self-Reported) Housing Units (millions) Home ...

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

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

    ... 14.8 10.5 2,263 1,669 1,079 1,312 1,019 507 N N N ConcreteConcrete Block... 5.3 3.4 2,393 1,660 1,614 Q Q Q Q Q Q Composition...

  3. U.S. Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries

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

    48 148 144 143 142 140 1982-2015 Operating 137 137 134 139 139 137 1982-2015 Idle 11 11 10 4 3 3 1982-2015 Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Operable (Barrels per Calendar Day) 17,583,790 17,736,370 17,322,178 17,823,659 17,924,630 17,967,088 1982-2015 Operating 16,850,194 16,937,024 16,744,291 16,775,658 17,730,200 17,767,588 1982-2015 Idle 733,596 799,346 577,887 1,048,001 194,430 199,500 1982-2015 Operable (Barrels per Stream Day) 18,581,089 18,953,189 18,560,350 18,971,643

  4. North Dakota Refining Capacity Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dennis Hill; Kurt Swenson; Carl Tuura; Jim Simon; Robert Vermette; Gilberto Marcha; Steve Kelly; David Wells; Ed Palmer; Kuo Yu; Tram Nguyen; Juliam Migliavacca

    2011-01-05

    According to a 2008 report issued by the United States Geological Survey, North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation. With the size and remoteness of the discovery, the question became 'can a business case be made for increasing refining capacity in North Dakota?' And, if so what is the impact to existing players in the region. To answer the question, a study committee comprised of leaders in the region's petroleum industry were brought together to define the scope of the study, hire a consulting firm and oversee the study. The study committee met frequently to provide input on the findings and modify the course of the study, as needed. The study concluded that the Petroleum Area Defense District II (PADD II) has an oversupply of gasoline. With that in mind, a niche market, naphtha, was identified. Naphtha is used as a diluent used for pipelining the bitumen (heavy crude) from Canada to crude markets. The study predicted there will continue to be an increase in the demand for naphtha through 2030. The study estimated the optimal configuration for the refinery at 34,000 barrels per day (BPD) producing 15,000 BPD of naphtha and a 52 percent refinery charge for jet and diesel yield. The financial modeling assumed the sponsor of a refinery would invest its own capital to pay for construction costs. With this assumption, the internal rate of return is 9.2 percent which is not sufficient to attract traditional investment given the risk factor of the project. With that in mind, those interested in pursuing this niche market will need to identify incentives to improve the rate of return.

  5. Operational Excellence

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

    Operational Excellence /about/_assets/images/icon-70th.jpg Operational Excellence The Lab's mission is to develop and apply science and technology to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent; reduce global threats; and solve other emerging national security and energy challenges. aeiral shot of los alamos, new mexico What Los Alamos gets done as a premier national security science laboratory depends on how we do it The Laboratory's operations and business

  6. Sustainability in Real Estate Operations

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

    Convention Center * Phoenix, Arizona Sustainability in Real Estate Operations Sustainability Sustainability Planning Eleni Reed GSA Public Buildings Service August 11, 2015 Sustainability in Real Estate Operations GSA incorporates sustainability practices in real estate operations Sustainability performance is an integral aspect of GSA's real estate operations 3 GSA PORTFOLIO 8,721 total assets * 376.9 million sq. ft. 1,574 owned assets * 183.4 million owned sq. ft. 7,147 leased assets * 193.4

  7. operations center

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    servers and other critical Operations Center equipment

  8. Independent air supply system filtered to protect against biological and radiological agents (99.7%).
  9. <...

  10. WINDExchange: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity

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

    Education Printable Version Bookmark and Share Workforce Development Collegiate Wind Competition Wind for Schools Project School Project Locations Education & Training Programs Curricula & Teaching Materials Resources Installed Wind Capacity This page has maps of the United States that show installed wind capacity by state and its progression. This map shows the installed wind capacity in megawatts. As of June 30, 2015, 67,870 megawatts have been installed. Alaska, 62 megawatts; Hawaii,

  11. Property:Cooling Capacity | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Pages using the property "Cooling Capacity" Showing 2 pages using this property. D Distributed Generation Study615 kW Waukesha Packaged System + 90 + Distributed Generation...

  12. Increasing the Capacity of Existing Power Lines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2013-04-01

    The capacity of the grid has been largely unchanged for decades and needs to expand to accommodate new power plants and renewable energy projects.

  13. EEI/DOE Transmission Capacity Report

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

    ... The data show a continuation of past trends. Specifically, transmission capacity is being ... 1978 through 2012. These results show trends over time at the national and regional ...

  14. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  15. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9...

  16. Voluntary Initiative: Partnering to Enhance Program Capacity

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Better Buildings Residential Network Program Sustainability Peer Exchange Call Series: Voluntary Initiative: Partnering to Enhance Program Capacity, Call Slides and Summary, May 8, 2014.

  17. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Previous Articles Previous Articles Estimates of Peak Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States, 2009 Update (Released, 8312009) Estimates of Peak Underground...

  18. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... changed to active. References Methodology Related Links Storage Basics Field Level Annual Capacity Data Map of Storage Facilities Natural Gas Data Tables Short-Term Energy Outlook

  19. Climate Change Capacity Development (C3D+) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Capacity Development (C3D+) Jump to: navigation, search Logo: Climate Change Capacity Development (C3D+) Name Climate Change Capacity Development (C3D+) AgencyCompany...

  20. Trinidad and Tobago-Building Capacity for Innovative Policy NAMAs...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Trinidad and Tobago-Building Capacity for Innovative Policy NAMAs (Redirected from Building Capacity for Innovative Policy NAMAs) Jump to: navigation, search Name Building Capacity...

  21. UNDP-Low Emission Capacity Building Programme | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Capacity Building Programme Jump to: navigation, search Logo: UNDP-Low Emission Capacity Building Programme Name UNDP-Low Emission Capacity Building Programme AgencyCompany...

  22. Nuclear reactor characteristics and operational history

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1. Capacity and Generation, Table 3. Characteristics and Operational History Table 2. U.S. Nuclear Reactor Ownership Data PDF XLS Plant/Reactor Name Generator ID Utility Name - Operator Owner Name % Owned Arkansas Nuclear One 1 Entergy Arkansas Inc Entergy Arkansas Inc 100 Arkansas Nuclear One 2 Entergy Arkansas Inc Entergy Arkansas Inc 100 Beaver Valley 1 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp 100 Beaver Valley 2 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company

  1. Emery Station Operations Center

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

    Emery Station Operations Center

  2. Operating Costs

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

    1997-03-28

    This chapter is focused on capital costs for conventional construction and environmental restoration and waste management projects and examines operating cost estimates to verify that all elements of the project have been considered and properly estimated.

  3. DOE-NE Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program and EPRI Long-Term Operations Program Joint Research and Development Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Don Williams

    2012-04-01

    Nuclear power has contributed almost 20% of the total amount of electricity generated in the United States over the past two decades. High capacity factors and low operating costs make nuclear power plants (NPPs) some of the most economical power generators available. Further, nuclear power remains the single largest contributor (nearly 70%) of non-greenhouse gas-emitting electric power generation in the United States. Even when major refurbishments are performed to extend operating life, these plants continue to represent cost-effective, low-carbon assets to the nation's electrical generation capability.

  4. Fail-Safe Design for Large Capacity Li-Ion Battery Systems - Energy

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

    Innovation Portal Find More Like This Return to Search Fail-Safe Design for Large Capacity Li-Ion Battery Systems National Renewable Energy Laboratory Contact NREL About This Technology Publications: PDF Document Publication Fail Safe Design for Large Capacity Lithium-ion Batteries.pdf (2,324 KB) Technology Marketing Summary Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are a promising candidate for energy storage of electric drive vehicles due to their high power and energy density. The total electric

  5. Dual capacity compressor with reversible motor and controls arrangement therefor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Sisk, Francis J. (Washington Township, Fayette County, PA)

    1980-12-02

    A hermetic reciprocating compressor such as may be used in heat pump applications is provided for dual capacity operation by providing the crankpin of the crankshaft with an eccentric ring rotatably mounted thereon, and with the end of the connecting rod opposite the piston encompassing the outer circumference of the eccentric ring, with means limiting the rotation of the eccentric ring upon the crankpin between one end point and an opposite angularly displaced end point to provide different values of eccentricity depending upon which end point the eccentric ring is rotated to upon the crankpin, and a reversible motor in the hermetic shell of the compressor for rotating the crankshaft, the motor operating in one direction effecting the angular displacement of the eccentric ring relative to the crankpin to the one end point, and in the opposite direction effecting the angular displacement of the eccentric ring relative to the crankpin to the opposite end point, this arrangement automatically giving different stroke lengths depending upon the direction of motor rotation. The mechanical structure of the arrangement may take various forms including at least one in which any impact of reversal is reduced by utilizing lubricant passages and chambers at the interface area of the crankpin and eccentric ring to provide a dashpot effect. In the main intended application of the arrangement according to the invention, that is, in a refrigerating or air conditioning system, it is desirable to insure a delay during reversal of the direction of compressor operation. A control arrangement is provided in which the control system controls the direction of motor operation in accordance with temperature conditions, the system including control means for effecting operation in a low capacity direction or alternatively in a high capacity direction in response to one set, and another set, respectively, of temperature conditions and with timer means delaying a restart of the compressor motor for at least a predetermined time in response to a condition of the control means operative to initiate a change in the operating direction of the compressor when it restarts.

  6. Rocky Mountain Regional CO{sub 2} Storage Capacity and Significance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laes, Denise; Eisinger, Chris; Esser, Richard; Morgan, Craig; Rauzi, Steve; Scholle, Dana; Matthews, Vince; McPherson, Brian

    2013-08-30

    The purpose of this study includes extensive characterization of the most promising geologic CO{sub 2} storage formations on the Colorado Plateau, including estimates of maximum possible storage capacity. The primary targets of characterization and capacity analysis include the Cretaceous Dakota Formation, the Jurassic Entrada Formation and the Permian Weber Formation and their equivalents in the Colorado Plateau region. The total CO{sub 2} capacity estimates for the deep saline formations of the Colorado Plateau region range between 9.8 metric GT and 143 metric GT, depending on assumed storage efficiency, formations included, and other factors.

  7. 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...

  8. 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

  9. Representation of the Solar Capacity Value in the ReEDS Capacity Expansion Model: Preprint

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sigrin, B.; Sullivan, P.; Ibanez, E.; Margolis, R.

    2014-08-01

    An important emerging issue is the estimation of renewables' contributions to reliably meeting system demand, or their capacity value. While the capacity value of thermal generation can be estimated easily, assessment of wind and solar requires a more nuanced approach due to resource variability. Reliability-based methods, particularly, effective load-carrying capacity (ELCC), are considered to be the most robust techniques for addressing this resource variability. The Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) capacity expansion model and other long-term electricity capacity planning models require an approach to estimating CV for generalized PV and system configurations with low computational and data requirements. In this paper we validate treatment of solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity value by ReEDS capacity expansion model by comparing model results to literature for a range of energy penetration levels. Results from the ReEDS model are found to compare well with both comparisons--despite not being resolved at an hourly scale.

  10. Planned Geothermal Capacity | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Map of Development Projects Planned Geothermal Capacity in the U.S. is reported by the Geothermal Energy Association via their Annual U.S. Geothermal Power Production and...

  11. Capacity Building Project with Howard University

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this initiative is to build community capacity for public participation in environmental and energy decision making. The target communities are those impacted by U.S. Department of...

  12. Grid Integration and the Carrying Capacity of the U.S. Grid to Incorporate

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Variable Renewable Energy | Department of Energy Grid Integration and the Carrying Capacity of the U.S. Grid to Incorporate Variable Renewable Energy Grid Integration and the Carrying Capacity of the U.S. Grid to Incorporate Variable Renewable Energy This report summarizes the challenges to integrating increasing amounts of variable renewable energy (RE), identifies emerging practices in power system planning and operation that can facilitate grid integration, and proposes a unifying

  13. High-Rate, High-Capacity Binder-Free Electrode

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

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC High-Rate, High-Capacity Binder-Free Electrode Patent: PCT-09-41 Chunmei Ban Zhuangchun Wu Anne Dillon National Renewable Energy Laboratory PCT: 09-41 Binderfree electrode 2 Outline  What is the technology  Why it is better than other technologies  How far away from market  Technical details  Market analysis National Renewable Energy Laboratory PCT: 09-41 Binderfree electrode 3

  14. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    California" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Dynegy Moss Landing Power Plant","Natural gas","Dynegy -Moss Landing LLC",2529 2,"Diablo Canyon","Nuclear","Pacific Gas & Electric Co",2240 3,"AES Alamitos LLC","Natural gas","AES Alamitos LLC",1997 4,"Castaic","Pumped Storage","Los Angeles

  15. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Illinois" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Braidwood Generation Station","Nuclear","Exelon Nuclear",2330 2,"Byron Generating Station","Nuclear","Exelon Nuclear",2300 3,"LaSalle Generating Station","Nuclear","Exelon Nuclear",2277 4,"Quad Cities Generating Station","Nuclear","Exelon

  16. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Maine" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"William F Wyman","Petroleum","FPL Energy Wyman LLC",821.6 2,"Westbrook Energy Center Power Plant","Natural gas","Westbrook Energy Center",506 3,"Maine Independence Station","Natural gas","Casco Bay Energy Co LLC",490 4,"Verso Paper","Natural

  17. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Maryland" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Chalk Point LLC","Petroleum","NRG Chalk Point LLC",2248 2,"Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant","Nuclear","Calvert Cliffs Nuclear PP LLC",1716 3,"Morgantown Generating Plant","Coal","GenOn Mid-Atlantic LLC",1423 4,"Brandon Shores","Coal","Raven

  18. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Michigan" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Monroe (MI)","Coal","DTE Electric Company",2944 2,"Donald C Cook","Nuclear","Indiana Michigan Power Co",2069 3,"Ludington","Pumped storage","Consumers Energy Co",1872 4,"Midland Cogeneration Venture","Natural gas","Midland Cogeneration

  19. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Missouri" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Labadie","Coal","Union Electric Co - (MO)",2374 2,"Iatan","Coal","Kansas City Power & Light Co",1593.8 3,"Callaway","Nuclear","Union Electric Co - (MO)",1194 4,"Rush Island","Coal","Union Electric Co - (MO)",1182 5,"New

  20. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Montana" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Colstrip","Coal","PPL Montana LLC",2094 2,"Noxon Rapids","Hydroelectric","Avista Corp",580.5 3,"Libby","Hydroelectric","USACE Northwestern Division",525 4,"Hungry Horse","Hydroelectric","U S Bureau of Reclamation",428

  1. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Nebraska" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Gerald Gentleman","Coal","Nebraska Public Power District",1365 2,"Nebraska City","Coal","Omaha Public Power District",1339.3 3,"Cooper Nuclear Station","Nuclear","Nebraska Public Power District",766 4,"North Omaha","Coal","Omaha Public Power

  2. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Jersey" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"PSEG Salem Generating Station","Nuclear","PSEG Nuclear LLC",2370.4 2,"PSEG Linden Generating Station","Natural gas","PSEG Fossil LLC",1572 3,"Bergen Generating Station","Natural gas","PSEG Fossil LLC",1208 4,"PSEG Hope Creek Generating

  3. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Mexico" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"San Juan","Coal","Public Service Co of NM",1684 2,"Four Corners","Coal","Arizona Public Service Co",1540 3,"Luna Energy Facility","Natural gas","Public Service Co of NM",559 4,"Hobbs Generating Station","Natural gas","CAMS NM LLC",530.4

  4. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Dakota" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Coal Creek","Coal","Great River Energy",1141.9 2,"Antelope Valley","Coal","Basin Electric Power Coop",900 3,"Milton R Young","Coal","Minnkota Power Coop, Inc",684 4,"Leland Olds","Coal","Basin Electric Power Coop",667

  5. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Oklahoma" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Northeastern","Coal","Public Service Co of Oklahoma",1815 2,"Redbud Power Plant","Natural gas","Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co",1752.4 3,"Muskogee","Coal","Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co",1505.5 4,"Seminole (OK)","Natural gas","Oklahoma Gas &

  6. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Oregon" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"John Day","Hydroelectric","USACE Northwestern Division",2160 2,"The Dalles","Hydroelectric","USACE Northwestern Division",1822.7 3,"Bonneville","Hydroelectric","USACE Northwestern Division",1153.9 4,"McNary","Hydroelectric","USACE Northwestern

  7. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Pennsylvania" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"PPL Susquehanna","Nuclear","PPL Susquehanna LLC",2520 2,"FirstEnergy Bruce Mansfield","Coal","FirstEnergy Generation Corp",2510 3,"Limerick","Nuclear","Exelon Nuclear",2296 4,"Peach Bottom","Nuclear","Exelon Nuclear",2250.8 5,"Homer

  8. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Rhode Island" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Entergy Rhode Island State Energy LP","Natural gas","Entergy RISE",538 2,"Manchester Street","Natural gas","Dominion Energy New England, LLC",447 3,"Tiverton Power Plant","Natural gas","Tiverton Power LLC",250 4,"Ocean State Power","Natural

  9. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Carolina" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Oconee","Nuclear","Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC",2554 2,"Cross","Coal","South Carolina Public Service Authority",2350 3,"Catawba","Nuclear","Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC",2290.2 4,"Bad Creek","Pumped Storage","Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC",1360

  10. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Vermont" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Vermont Yankee","Nuclear","Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee",619.4 2,"Kingdom Community Wind","Wind","Green Mountain Power Corp",65 3,"J C McNeil","Wood","City of Burlington Electric - (VT)",52 4,"Bellows Falls","Hydroelectric","TransCanada Hydro

  11. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Washington" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Grand Coulee","Hydroelectric","U S Bureau of Reclamation",7079 2,"Chief Joseph","Hydroelectric","USACE Northwestern Division",2456.2 3,"Transalta Centralia Generation","Coal","TransAlta Centralia Gen LLC",1340 4,"Rocky

  12. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    West Virginia" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"John E Amos","Coal","Appalachian Power Co",2900 2,"FirstEnergy Harrison Power Station","Coal","Allegheny Energy Supply Co LLC",1954 3,"Mt Storm","Coal","Virginia Electric & Power Co",1640 4,"Mitchell (WV)","Coal","Kentucky Power

  13. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Wyoming" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Jim Bridger","Coal","PacifiCorp",2111 2,"Laramie River Station","Coal","Basin Electric Power Coop",1710 3,"Dave Johnston","Coal","PacifiCorp",760 4,"Naughton","Coal","PacifiCorp",687 5,"Dry Fork Station","Coal","Basin

  14. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    United States" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Grand Coulee","Hydroelectric","U S Bureau of Reclamation",7079 2,"Palo Verde","Nuclear","Arizona Public Service Co",3937 3,"Martin","Natural gas","Florida Power & Light Co",3695 4,"W A Parish","Coal","NRG Texas Power LLC",3675

  15. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Alaska" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Beluga","Natural gas","Chugach Electric Assn Inc",344.4 2,"George M Sullivan Generation Plant 2","Natural gas","Anchorage Municipal Light and Power",248.1 3,"Southcentral Power Project","Natural gas","Chugach Electric Assn Inc",169.7 4,"North

  16. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Arizona" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Palo Verde","Nuclear","Arizona Public Service Co",3937 2,"Navajo","Coal","Salt River Project",2250 3,"Springerville","Coal","Tucson Electric Power Co",1614.1 4,"Glen Canyon Dam","Hydroelectric","U S Bureau of Reclamation",1312

  17. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Colorado" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Comanche (CO)","Coal","Public Service Co of Colorado",1410 2,"Craig (CO)","Coal","Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc",1304 3,"Fort St Vrain","Natural gas","Public Service Co of Colorado",969 4,"Rawhide","Natural gas","Platte River Power

  18. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Connecticut" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Millstone","Nuclear","Dominion Nuclear Conn Inc",2102.5 2,"Middletown","Petroleum","Middletown Power LLC",770.2 3,"Lake Road Generating Plant","Natural gas","Lake Road Generating Co LP",757.3 4,"Kleen Energy Systems Project","Natural

  19. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Florida" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Martin","Natural gas","Florida Power & Light Co",3695 2,"West County Energy Center","Natural gas","Florida Power & Light Co",3669 3,"Turkey Point","Nuclear","Florida Power & Light Co",3552 4,"Manatee","Petroleum","Florida Power &

  20. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Georgia" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Scherer","Coal","Georgia Power Co",3406.7 2,"Bowen","Coal","Georgia Power Co",3202 3,"Jack McDonough","Natural gas","Georgia Power Co",2578 4,"Vogtle","Nuclear","Georgia Power Co",2302 5,"Wansley","Coal","Georgia Power

  1. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Idaho" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Brownlee","Hydroelectric","Idaho Power Co",744 2,"Dworshak","Hydroelectric","USACE Northwestern Division",400 3,"Langley Gulch Power Plant","Natural gas","Idaho Power Co",298.7 4,"Cabinet Gorge","Hydroelectric","Avista Corp",254.6

  2. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Indiana" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Gibson","Coal","Duke Energy Indiana Inc",3132 2,"Rockport","Coal","Indiana Michigan Power Co",2600 3,"R M Schahfer","Coal","Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co",1780 4,"AES Petersburg","Coal","Indianapolis Power & Light Co",1709.5 5,"Clifty

  3. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Iowa" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Walter Scott Jr Energy Center","Coal","MidAmerican Energy Co",1635.5 2,"George Neal North","Coal","MidAmerican Energy Co",909.9 3,"Louisa","Coal","MidAmerican Energy Co",746.2 4,"Ottumwa","Coal","Interstate Power and Light Co",718.4

  4. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Kansas" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Jeffrey Energy Center","Coal","Westar Energy Inc",2155 2,"La Cygne","Coal","Kansas City Power & Light Co",1415.3 3,"Wolf Creek Generating Station","Nuclear","Wolf Creek Nuclear Optg Corp",1175 4,"Gordon Evans Energy Center","Natural gas","Kansas

  5. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Kentucky" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Paradise","Coal","Tennessee Valley Authority",2201 2,"Trimble County","Coal","Louisville Gas & Electric Co",2185 3,"Ghent","Coal","Kentucky Utilities Co",1932 4,"E W Brown","Natural gas","Kentucky Utilities Co",1496 5,"Mill Creek

  6. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Louisiana" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Big Cajun 2","Coal","Louisiana Generating LLC",1756 2,"Willow Glen","Natural gas","Entergy Gulf States - LA LLC",1748.8 3,"Brame Energy Center","Petroleum","Cleco Power LLC",1543 4,"Nine Mile Point","Natural gas","Entergy Louisiana

  7. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Minnesota" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Sherburne County","Coal","Northern States Power Co - Minnesota",2242.8 2,"Clay Boswell","Coal","Minnesota Power Inc",1082.4 3,"Prairie Island","Nuclear","Northern States Power Co - Minnesota",1040 4,"Monticello Nuclear

  8. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    York" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Robert Moses Niagara","Hydroelectric","New York Power Authority",2353.2 2,"Ravenswood","Natural gas","TC Ravenswood LLC",2207.6 3,"Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station","Nuclear","Nine Mile Point Nuclear Sta LLC",1924.1 4,"Northport","Natural

  9. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Carolina" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Roxboro","Coal","Duke Energy Progress - (NC)",2433 2,"McGuire","Nuclear","Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC",2278.1 3,"Belews Creek","Coal","Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC",2220 4,"Marshall (NC)","Coal","Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC",2078 5,"Sherwood

  10. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Dakota" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Oahe","Hydroelectric","USCE-Missouri River District",714 2,"Big Bend Dam","Hydroelectric","USCE-Missouri River District",520 3,"Big Stone","Coal","Otter Tail Power Co",475.6 4,"Fort Randall","Hydroelectric","USCE-Missouri River District",360

  11. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2013

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

    Tennessee" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Cumberland (TN)","Coal","Tennessee Valley Authority",2470 2,"Sequoyah","Nuclear","Tennessee Valley Authority",2277.7 3,"Johnsonville","Coal","Tennessee Valley Authority",2250.8 4,"Raccoon Mountain","Pumped storage","Tennessee Valley

  12. Measuring the capacity impacts of demand response

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Earle, Robert; Kahn, Edward P.; Macan, Edo

    2009-07-15

    Critical peak pricing and peak time rebate programs offer benefits by increasing system reliability, and therefore, reducing capacity needs of the electric power system. These benefits, however, decrease substantially as the size of the programs grows relative to the system size. More flexible schemes for deployment of demand response can help address the decreasing returns to scale in capacity value, but more flexible demand response has decreasing returns to scale as well. (author)

  13. Nuclear reactor characteristics and operational history

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Nuclear > U.S. reactor operation status tables Nuclear Reactor Operational Status Tables Release date: November 22, 2011 Next release date: TBD See also: Table 1. Capacity and Generation, Table 2. Ownership Data Table 3. Nuclear Reactor Characteristics and Operational History PDF XLS Plant Name Generator ID Type Reactor Supplier and Model Construction Start Grid Connection Original Expiration Date License Renewal Application License Renewal Issued Extended Expiration Arkansas Nuclear One 1

  14. Retraying and revamp double big LPG fractionators's capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sasson, R. , Friendswood, TX ); Pate, R. )

    1993-08-02

    Enterprise operates two LPG fractionation units at Mont Belvieu: the Seminole unit and the West Texas unit. In 1985, Nye Engineering Inc., Friendswood, Texas, designed improvements to expand the Seminole plant from 60,000 b/d of C[sub 2] + feed to 90,000 b/d. The primary modifications made to increase the West Texas plant's capacity and reduce fuel consumption were the following: retraying the deethanizer and depropanizer columns with new High Capacity Nye Trays. Lowering the pressure in the de-ethanizer and depropanizer to improve the separating efficiency of the columns. Replacing the debutanizer with a high-pressure column that rejects its condensing heat as reboil for the de-ethanizer. Adjusting the feed temperature to balance the load in the top and bottom of the depropanizer column to prevent premature flooding in one section of the tower. Installing convection heaters to recover existing stack gas heat into the process. In conjunction with the capacity expansion, there was a strong incentive to improve the fuel efficiency of the unit. The modifications are described.

  15. Capacity Value of PV and Wind Generation in the NV Energy System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lu, Shuai; Diao, Ruisheng; Samaan, Nader A.; Etingov, Pavel V.

    2014-03-21

    Calculation of photovoltaic (PV) and wind power capacity values is important for estimating additional load that can be served by new PV or wind installations in the electrical power system. It also is the basis for assigning capacity credit payments in systems with markets. Because of variability in solar and wind resources, PV and wind generation contribute to power system resource adequacy differently from conventional generation. Many different approaches to calculating PV and wind generation capacity values have been used by utilities and transmission operators. Using the NV Energy system as a study case, this report applies peak-period capacity factor (PPCF) and effective load carrying capability (ELCC) methods to calculate capacity values for renewable energy sources. We show the connection between the PPCF and ELCC methods in the process of deriving a simplified approach that approximates the ELCC method. This simplified approach does not require generation fleet data and provides the theoretical basis for a quick check on capacity value results of PV and wind generation. The diminishing return of capacity benefit as renewable generation increases is conveniently explained using the simplified capacity value approach.

  16. Operating Strategies

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

    Operating Strategies and Design Recommendations for Mitigating Local Damage Effects in Offshore Turbine Blades Phillip W. Richards phillip@gatech.edu Graduate Research Assistant Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering Atlanta, Georgia, USA D. Todd Griffith dgriffi@sandia.gov Principal Member of the Technical Staff Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Dewey H. Hodges dhodges@gatech.edu Professor Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering Atlanta, Georgia, USA

  17. Carbon Dioxide Sealing Capacity: Textural or Compositional Controls?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cranganu, Constantin; Soleymani, Hamidreza; Sadiqua, Soleymani; Watson, Kieva

    2013-11-30

    This research project is aiming to assess the carbon dioxide sealing capacity of most common seal-rocks, such as shales and non-fractured limestones, by analyzing the role of textural and compositional parameters of those rocks. We hypothesize that sealing capacity is controlled by textural and/or compositional pa-rameters of caprocks. In this research, we seek to evaluate the importance of textural and compositional parameters affecting the sealing capacity of caprocks. The conceptu-al framework involves two testable end-member hypotheses concerning the sealing ca-pacity of carbon dioxide reservoir caprocks. Better understanding of the elements controlling sealing quality will advance our knowledge regarding the sealing capacity of shales and carbonates. Due to relatively low permeability, shale and non-fractured carbonate units are considered relatively imper-meable formations which can retard reservoir fluid flow by forming high capillary pres-sure. Similarly, these unites can constitute reliable seals for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration purposes. This project is a part of the comprehensive project with the final aim of studying the caprock sealing properties and the relationship between microscopic and macroscopic characteristics of seal rocks in depleted gas fields of Oklahoma Pan-handle. Through this study we examined various seal rock characteristics to infer about their respective effects on sealing capacity in special case of replacing reservoir fluid with super critical carbon dioxide (scCO{sub 2}). To assess the effect of textural and compositional properties on scCO{sub 2} maximum reten-tion column height we collected 30 representative core samples in caprock formations in three counties (Cimarron, Texas, Beaver) in Oklahoma Panhandle. Core samples were collected from various seal formations (e.g., Cherokee, Keys, Morrowan) at different depths. We studied the compositional and textural properties of the core samples using several techniques. Mercury Injection Porosimetry (MIP), Scanning Electron Microsco-py SEM, and Sedigraph measurements are used to assess the pore-throat-size distribu-tion, sorting, texture, and grain size of the samples. Also, displacement pressure at 10% mercury saturation (Pd) and graphically derived threshold pressure (Pc) were deter-mined by MIP technique. SEM images were used for qualitative study of the minerals and pores texture of the core samples. Moreover, EDS (Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spec-trometer), BET specific surface area, and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) measurements were performed to study various parameters and their possible effects on sealing capaci-ty of the samples. We found that shales have the relatively higher average sealing threshold pressure (Pc) than carbonate and sandstone samples. Based on these observations, shale formations could be considered as a promising caprock in terms of retarding scCO{sub 2} flow and leak-age into above formations. We hypothesized that certain characteristics of shales (e.g., 3 fine pore size, pore size distribution, high specific surface area, and strong physical chemical interaction between wetting phase and mineral surface) make them an effi-cient caprock for sealing super critical CO{sub 2}. We found that the displacement pressure at 10% mercury saturation could not be the ultimate representative of the sealing capacity of the rock sample. On the other hand, we believe that graphical method, introduced by Cranganu (2004) is a better indicator of the true sealing capacity. Based on statistical analysis of our samples from Oklahoma Panhandle we assessed the effects of each group of properties (textural and compositional) on maximum supercriti-cal CO{sub 2} height that can be hold by the caprock. We conclude that there is a relatively strong positive relationship (+.40 to +.69) between supercritical CO{sub 2} column height based on Pc and hard/ soft mineral content index (ratio of minerals with Mohs hardness more than 5 over minerals with Mohs hardness less than 5) in both shales and limestone samples. Average median pore rad

  18. Air conditioning system with supplemental ice storing and cooling capacity

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Weng, Kuo-Lianq; Weng, Kuo-Liang

    1998-01-01

    The present air conditioning system with ice storing and cooling capacity can generate and store ice in its pipe assembly or in an ice storage tank particularly equipped for the system, depending on the type of the air conditioning system. The system is characterized in particular in that ice can be produced and stored in the air conditioning system whereby the time of supplying cooled air can be effectively extended with the merit that the operation cycle of the on and off of the compressor can be prolonged, extending the operation lifespan of the compressor in one aspect. In another aspect, ice production and storage in great amount can be performed in an off-peak period of the electrical power consumption and the stored ice can be utilized in the peak period of the power consumption so as to provide supplemental cooling capacity for the compressor of the air conditioning system whereby the shift of peak and off-peak power consumption can be effected with ease. The present air conditioning system can lower the installation expense for an ice-storing air conditioning system and can also be applied to an old conventional air conditioning system.

  19. Operations Office

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

    (~ii~,Richland Operations Office ~Z4TESO~Richland, Washington 99352 SEP 2 2009 CERTIFIED MAIL Ms. Sarah Washburn Heart of America Northwest 1314 N.E. 5 6 th Street Suite 100 Seattle, Washington 98105 Dear Ms. Washburn: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST (FOI 2009-0067) You requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOJA), the following documents relating to: 1 . "The authorization, decision to use, and actual use of any and all pesticides and herbicides anywhere within the

  20. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    NA NA NA NA NA NA 2002-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  1. Total Energy Outcome City Pilot

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

    Total Energy Outcome City Pilot 2014 Building Technologies Office Peer Review Targeted Energy Outcomes A New City Energy Policy for Buildings Ken Baker - kbaker@neea.org Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Project Summary Timeline: Key Partners: Start date: 09/01/2012 Planned end date: 08/31/2015 Key Milestones 1. Produce outcome based marketing collateral; 04/03/14 New Buildings Institute Two to three NW cities 2. Quantify and define participating city actions; 04/03/14 3. Quantify ongoing

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    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 Available $208,620 Fee

  3. HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity

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

    HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity Analysis of NERSC Users' Data-Access Habits Reveals Sweet Spot for Short-term Storage October 16, 2015 Contact: Kathy Kincade, +1 510 495 2124, kkincade@lbl.gov HPSS 09 vert NERSC users today are benefiting from a business decision made three years ago by the center's Storage Systems Group (SSG) as they were looking to upgrade the High-Performance Storage System (HPSS) disk cache: rather than focus primarily on

  4. INVESTING IN NEW BASE LOAD GENERATING CAPACITY

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

    INVESTING IN NEW BASE LOAD GENERATING CAPACITY Paul L. Joskow April 8, 2008 The views expressed here are my own. They do not reflect the views of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, MIT or any other organization with which I am affiliated. THE 25-YEAR VIEW * Significant investment in base-load generating capacity is required over the next 25 years to balance supply and demand efficiently - ~ 200 to 250 Gw (Gross) - Depends on retirements of older steam and peaking units - Depends on demand growth *

  5. Ukraine-Capacity Building for Low Carbon Growth | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Ukraine-Capacity Building for Low Carbon Growth (Redirected from UNDP-Capacity Building for Low Carbon Growth in Ukraine) Jump to: navigation, search Name UNDP-Capacity Building...

  6. Survey and conceptual flow sheets for coal conversion plant handling-preparation and ash/slag removal operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zapp, F.C.; Thomas, O.W.; Silverman, M.D.; Dyslin, D.A.; Holmes, J.M.

    1980-03-01

    This study was undertaken at the request of the Fossil Fuel Processing Division of the Department of Energy. The report includes a compilation of conceptual flow sheets, including major equipment lists, and the results of an availability survey of potential suppliers of equipment associated with the coal and ash/slag operations that will be required by future large coal conversion plant complexes. Conversion plant flow sheet operations and related equipment requirements were based on two representative bituminous coals - Pittsburgh and Kentucky No. 9 - and on nine coal conversion processes. It appears that almost all coal handling and preparation and ash/slag removal equipment covered by this survey, with the exception of some coal comminution equipment, either is on hand or can readily be fabricated to meet coal conversion plant capacity requirements of up to 50,000 short tons per day. Equipment capable of handling even larger capacities can be developed. This approach appears to be unjustified, however, because in many cases a reasonable or optimum number of trains of equipment must be considered when designing a conversion plant complex. The actual number of trains of equipment selected will be influenced by the total requied capacity of the complex, the minimum on-line capacity that can be tolerated in case of equipment failure, reliability of specific equipment types, and the number of reactors and related feed injection stations needed for the specific conversion process.

  7. HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity...

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

    HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Presentation for...

  8. Montana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  9. Design and Evaluation of Novel High Capacity Cathode Materials...

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

    PDF icon esp13thackeray.pdf More Documents & Publications Design and Evaluation of High Capacity Cathodes Design and Evaluation of Novel High Capacity Cathode Materials Design ...

  10. Design and Evaluation of Novel High Capacity Cathode Materials...

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

    More Documents & Publications Design and Evaluation of High Capacity Cathodes Vehicle Technologies Office Merit Review 2014: Design and Evaluation of High Capacity Cathodes Design and ...

  11. Property:Installed Capacity (MW) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Installed Capacity (MW) Jump to: navigation, search Property Name Installed Capacity (MW) Property Type Number Retrieved from "http:en.openei.orgwindex.php?titleProperty:Insta...

  12. Tunisia-Capacity Development for GHG inventories and MRV | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Tunisia-Capacity Development for GHG inventories and MRV Jump to: navigation, search Name Capacity Development for GHG inventories and MRV in Tunisia AgencyCompany Organization...

  13. EPA-GHG Inventory Capacity Building | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    EPA-GHG Inventory Capacity Building Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary Name: US EPA GHG inventory Capacity Building AgencyCompany Organization: United States Environmental...

  14. EPA-GHG Inventory Capacity Building | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Capacity Building) Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary Name: US EPA GHG inventory Capacity Building AgencyCompany Organization: United States Environmental Protection...

  15. Modeling-Thermo-electrochemistry, Capacity Degradation and Mechanics...

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

    Modeling-Thermo-electrochemistry, Capacity Degradation and Mechanics with SEI Layer Modeling-Thermo-electrochemistry, Capacity Degradation and Mechanics with SEI Layer 2011 DOE ...

  16. Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the Northeast United States - November 2013 Assessment of the Adequacy of Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity in the...

  17. DOE Issues Enforcement Guidance on Large-Capacity Clothes Washer...

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

    Enforcement Guidance on Large-Capacity Clothes Washer Waivers and the Waiver Process DOE Issues Enforcement Guidance on Large-Capacity Clothes Washer Waivers and the Waiver Process...

  18. Property:Number of Plants included in Capacity Estimate | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Plants included in Capacity Estimate Jump to: navigation, search Property Name Number of Plants included in Capacity Estimate Property Type Number Retrieved from "http:...

  19. New Mexico Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  20. UNDP/EC-China-Climate Change Capacity Building Program | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    UNDPEC-China-Climate Change Capacity Building Program Redirect page Jump to: navigation, search REDIRECT EU-UNDP Low Emission Capacity Building Programme (LECBP) Retrieved from...

  1. EC/UNDP Climate Change Capacity Building Program | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ECUNDP Climate Change Capacity Building Program Jump to: navigation, search Name UNDPEC Climate Change Capacity Building Program AgencyCompany Organization The European Union...

  2. Costa Rica-EU-UNDP Climate Change Capacity Building Program ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    EU-UNDP Climate Change Capacity Building Program Jump to: navigation, search Name Costa Rica-EU-UNDP Climate Change Capacity Building Program AgencyCompany Organization The...

  3. FAO-Capacity Development on Climate Change | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Capacity Development on Climate Change Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: FAO-Capacity Development on Climate Change AgencyCompany Organization: Food and...

  4. India-Vulnerability Assessment and Enhancing Adaptive Capacities...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Vulnerability Assessment and Enhancing Adaptive Capacities to Climate Change Jump to: navigation, search Name India-Vulnerability Assessment and Enhancing Adaptive Capacities to...

  5. Trinidad and Tobago-Building Capacity for Innovative Policy NAMAs...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Trinidad and Tobago-Building Capacity for Innovative Policy NAMAs Jump to: navigation, search Name Building Capacity for Innovative Policy NAMAs AgencyCompany Organization...

  6. Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  7. West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May...

  8. Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  9. Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  10. Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  11. Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  12. Oklahoma Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  13. Nebraska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  14. Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  15. Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  16. Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  17. Missouri Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  18. Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  19. Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  20. Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  1. Ohio Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  2. Illinois Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  3. Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  4. Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  5. Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  6. Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  7. Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  8. ,"Table 4.B Winter Net Internal Demand, Capacity Resources,...

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

    B Winter Net Internal Demand, Capacity Resources, and Capacity Margins by North American Electric Reliability Corporation Region," ,"2001-2010 Actual, 2011-2015 Projected" ...

  9. Doubling Geothermal Generation Capacity by 2020: A Strategic...

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

    ... Sources: Energy Information Association (2015) Nameplate Capacity: Form 860 Generator Data, State Electricity Profiles (July 2015). Summer Capacity: Annual Energy Review (2015). ...

  10. Capacity Adequacy and Revenue Sufficiency in Electricity Markets...

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

    Capacity Adequacy and Revenue Sufficiency in Electricity Markets with Wind Power Title Capacity Adequacy and Revenue Sufficiency in Electricity Markets with Wind Power Publication...

  11. New York Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) New York Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  12. Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy ...

  13. Better Building Alliance, Plug and Process Loads in Commercial Buildings: Capacity and Power Requirement Analysis (Brochure)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    2014-09-01

    This brochure addresses gaps in actionable knowledge that can help reduce the plug load capacities designed into buildings. Prospective building occupants and real estate brokers lack accurate references for plug and process load (PPL) capacity requirements, so they often request 5-10 W/ft2 in their lease agreements. This brochure should be used to make these decisions so systems can operate more energy efficiently; upfront capital costs will also decrease. This information can also be used to drive changes in negotiations about PPL energy demands. It should enable brokers and tenants to agree about lower PPL capacities. Owner-occupied buildings will also benefit. Overestimating PPL capacity leads designers to oversize electrical infrastructure and cooling systems.

  14. U.S. Total Stocks

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Stock Type: Total Stocks Strategic Petroleum Reserve Non-SPR Refinery Tank Farms and Pipelines Leases Alaskan in Transit Bulk Terminal Pipeline Natural Gas Processing Plant Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Stock Type Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History Crude Oil and Petroleum Products 1,968,618 1,991,182 2,001,135 2,009,097 2,021,553 2,014,788 1956-2015 Crude Oil

  15. U.S. Total Exports

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

    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 Charles, LA LNG

  16. Total Estimated Contract Cost: Performance Period

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Fee Available (N/A) Total Fee Paid $23,179,000 $18,632,000 $16,680,000 $18,705,000 $25,495,000 $34,370,000 $32,329,000 $33,913,000 $66,794,000 $10,557,000 $3,135,000 $283,789,000 FY2015 FY2014 FY2013 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Fee Information Minimum Fee Maximum Fee Dec 2015 Contract Number: Cost Plus Incentive Fee Contractor: $3,264,909,094 Contract Period: EM Contractor Fee s Idaho Operations Office - Idaho Falls, ID Contract Name: Idaho Cleanup Project $0 Contract Type: CH2M Washington Group

  17. Calutron Operations | Y-12 National Security Complex

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

    Operations Calutron Operations

  18. Total Imports of Residual Fuel

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. Total 4,471 6,479 7,281 4,217 5,941 6,842 1936-2015 PAD District 1 1,854 1,956 4,571 2,206 2,952 3,174 1981-2015 Connecticut 1995-2015 Delaware 204 678 85 1995-2015 Florida 677 351 299 932 836 1995-2015 Georgia 232 138 120 295 1995-2015 Maine 50 1995-2015 Maryland 1995-2015 Massachusetts 1995-2015 New Hampshire 1995-2015 New Jersey 1,328 780 1,575 400 1,131 1,712 1995-2015 New York 7 6 1,475 998 350 322 1995-2015 North Carolina

  19. 2014 Total Electric Industry- Customers

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Customers (Data from forms EIA-861- schedules 4A, 4B, 4D, EIA-861S and EIA-861U) State Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Total New England 6,243,013 862,269 28,017 8 7,133,307 Connecticut 1,459,239 155,372 4,648 4 1,619,263 Maine 706,952 91,541 3,023 0 801,516 Massachusetts 2,720,128 398,717 14,896 3 3,133,744 New Hampshire 606,883 105,840 3,342 0 716,065 Rhode Island 438,879 58,346 1,884 1 499,110 Vermont 310,932 52,453 224 0 363,609 Middle Atlantic 15,806,914 2,247,455 44,397 17

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. Developing High Capacity, Long Life Anodes | Department of Energy

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

    Life Anodes Developing High Capacity, Long Life Anodes 2011 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program, and Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation PDF icon es020_amine_2011_p.pdf More Documents & Publications Developing A New High Capacity Anode With Long Cycle Life Developing High Capacity, Long Life Anodes Development of High Capacity Anode for Li-ion Batteries

  3. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground

  4. Increasing water holding capacity for irrigation

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

    Increasing water holding capacity for irrigation Researchers recommend solutions for sediment trapping in irrigation system LANL and SNL leveraged technical expertise to determine the sources of sediment and recommend solutions for irrigation sediment buildup management. April 3, 2012 Santa Cruz Irrigation District (SCID) Kenny Salazar, owner of Kenny Salazar Orchards, stands beside the Santa Cruz Reservoir Dam, which holds back the waters of the Santa Cruz Irrigation District. Salazar, a board

  5. Chaninik Wind Group: Harnessing Wind, Building Capacity

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Chaninik Wind Group: Harnessing Wind, Building Capacity Installation of Village Energy Information System Smart Grid Controller, Thermal Stoves and Meters to Enhance the Efficiency of Wind- Diesel Hybrid Power Generation in Tribal Regions of Alaska Department of Energy Tribal Energy Program Review November 16-20, 2009 The Chananik Wind Group Our goal is to become the "heartbeat of our region." Department of Energy Tribal Energy Program Review November 16-20, 2009 Department of Energy

  6. Expansion fractionation capacity of the LPG-ULE plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Morin, L.M.C.

    1999-07-01

    The Western Division of PDVSA has among other facilities a NGL Fractionation Complex located onshore in Ul'e. The complex consists of three plants, the first and second older plants, LPG-1 and LPG-2, which fractionate the NGL to produce propane, a butane mix and natural gasoline. The third plant, LPG-3, fractionates the butane mix from the LPG-1 and 2 plants to produce iso and normal butane. Several optimization projects already in progress will increase the NGL production to 12,200 b/d. For this reason it was decided to conduct a study of the existing fractionation facilities and utilities systems to determine their capacities. This evaluation revealed that some of the fractionation towers would have some limitations in the processing of the expected additional production. The study recommended an option to increase the capacity of the fractionation towers by lowering their operating pressure, in order to take advantage of relative volatility increase between the key components, which allows easier separation, as well as reducing the heat duty required. The completed study also determined that this option is more economically convenient than the replacement of the existing fractionation towers.

  7. Yerington Paiute Tribe: Building Organizational Capacity for...

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

    Grants Tribal Council Tribal Chairman Enterprises Water Operator Testing Administration ... Goals Provide alternative energy to all tribal government and business entities ...

  8. 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.

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. Performing a local barrier operation

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Archer, Charles J; Blocksome, Michael A; Ratterman, Joseph D; Smith, Brian E

    2014-03-04

    Performing a local barrier operation with parallel tasks executing on a compute node including, for each task: retrieving a present value of a counter; calculating, in dependence upon the present value of the counter and a total number of tasks performing the local barrier operation, a base value of the counter, the base value representing the counter's value prior to any task joining the local barrier; calculating, in dependence upon the base value and the total number of tasks performing the local barrier operation, a target value, the target value representing the counter's value when all tasks have joined the local barrier; joining the local barrier, including atomically incrementing the value of the counter; and repetitively, until the present value of the counter is no less than the target value of the counter: retrieving the present value of the counter and determining whether the present value equals the target value.

  15. Performing a local barrier operation

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Archer, Charles J; Blocksome, Michael A; Ratterman, Joseph D; Smith, Brian E

    2014-03-04

    Performing a local barrier operation with parallel tasks executing on a compute node including, for each task: retrieving a present value of a counter; calculating, in dependence upon the present value of the counter and a total number of tasks performing the local barrier operation, a base value, the base value representing the counter's value prior to any task joining the local barrier; calculating, in dependence upon the base value and the total number of tasks performing the local barrier operation, a target value of the counter, the target value representing the counter's value when all tasks have joined the local barrier; joining the local barrier, including atomically incrementing the value of the counter; and repetitively, until the present value of the counter is no less than the target value of the counter: retrieving the present value of the counter and determining whether the present value equals the target value.

  16. U.S. Total Weekly Inputs & Utilization

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    739 15,653 15,665 15,724 15,824 15,861 1982-2016 Gross Inputs 15,900 15,805 15,811 15,895 16,032 16,064 1990-2016 Operable Capacity (Calendar Day) 18,137 18,149 18,160 18,172 18,172 18,172 1990-2016 Percent Operable Utilization 87.7 87.1 87.1 87.5 88.2 88.4 1990-2016 Refiner and Blender Net Inputs Motor Gasoline Blending Components 104 200 257 502 612 696 2008-2016 RBOB 362 316 291 395 435 470 2010-2016 CBOB -355 -283 -247 -99 -16 46 2010-2016 GTAB 60 75 81 77 46 54 2010-2016 All Other 38 92 132

  17. Operation of staged membrane oxidation reactor systems

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Repasky, John Michael

    2012-10-16

    A method of operating a multi-stage ion transport membrane oxidation system. The method comprises providing a multi-stage ion transport membrane oxidation system with at least a first membrane oxidation stage and a second membrane oxidation stage, operating the ion transport membrane oxidation system at operating conditions including a characteristic temperature of the first membrane oxidation stage and a characteristic temperature of the second membrane oxidation stage; and controlling the production capacity and/or the product quality by changing the characteristic temperature of the first membrane oxidation stage and/or changing the characteristic temperature of the second membrane oxidation stage.

  18. Contractor Fee Payments- Idaho Operations Office

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    See the amount of fees earned on EM's major contracts for each evaluated fee period and the total contract to date at the Idaho Operations Office on these charts.

  19. ARM - AMF2 Operations

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

    and Contacts Management and Operations Operations Overview ARM Links BCR | ECR ECO, EWO Extraview PIF, CAR, DQR & DQPR Operations Status System i.arm.gov AMF2 Deployment...

  20. LANL OPERATING EXPERIENCE WITH THE WAND AND HERCULES PROTOTYPE SYSTEMS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K. M. GRUETZMACHER; C. L. FOXX; S. C. MYERS

    2000-09-01

    The Waste Assay for Nonradioactive Disposal (WAND) and the High Efficiency Radiation Counters for Ultimate Low Emission Sensitivity (HERCULES) prototype systems have been operating at Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL's) Solid Waste Operation's (SWO'S) non-destructive assay (NDA) building since 1997 and 1998, respectively. These systems are the cornerstone of the verification program for low-density Green is Clean (GIC) waste at the Laboratory. GIC waste includes all non-regulated waste generated in radiological controlled areas (RCAS) that has been actively segregated as clean (i.e., nonradioactive) through the use of waste generator acceptable knowledge (AK). The use of this methodology alters LANL's past practice of disposing of all room trash generated in nuclear facilities in radioactive waste landfills. Waste that is verified clean can be disposed of at the Los Alamos County Landfill. It is estimated that 50-90% of the low-density room trash from radioactive material handling areas at Los Alamos might be free of contamination. This approach avoids the high cost of disposal of clean waste at a radioactive waste landfill. It also reduces consumption of precious space in the radioactive waste landfill where disposal of this waste provides no benefit to the public or the environment. Preserving low level waste (LLW) disposal capacity for truly radioactive waste is critical in this era when expanding existing radioactive waste landfills or permitting new ones is resisted by regulators and stakeholders. This paper describes the operating experience with the WAND and HERCULES since they began operation at SWO. Waste for verification by the WAND system has been limited so far to waste from the Plutonium Facility and the Solid Waste Operations Facility. A total of461 ft3 (13.1 m3) of low-density shredded waste and paper have been verified clean by the WAND system. The HERCULES system has been used to verify waste from four Laboratory facilities. These are the Solid Waste Operations Facility, the TA-48 Chemistry Facility, the Shops Facility, and the Environmental Facility. A total of 3150 ft3 (89.3 m3) of low-density waste has been verified clean by the HERCULES system.

  1. Is there life in other markets? BPA explores preschedule capacity

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

    capacity 7152014 12:00 AM Tweet Page Content BPA launched a new process this spring to acquire preschedule (day-ahead) capacity from third-party suppliers. The goal was...

  2. Ukraine-Capacity Building for Low Carbon Growth | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Ukraine-Capacity Building for Low Carbon Growth Jump to: navigation, search Name UNDP-Capacity Building for Low Carbon Growth in Ukraine AgencyCompany Organization United Nations...

  3. National CHP Roadmap: Doubling Combined Heat and Power Capacity...

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

    CHP Roadmap: Doubling Combined Heat and Power Capacity in the United States by 2010, March 2001 National CHP Roadmap: Doubling Combined Heat and Power Capacity in the United States ...

  4. The Recovery Act: Cutting Costs and Upping Capacity | Department...

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

    The Recovery Act: Cutting Costs and Upping Capacity The Recovery Act: Cutting Costs and Upping Capacity August 25, 2010 - 5:56pm Addthis John Schueler John Schueler Former New ...

  5. Wind Gains ground, hitting 33 GW of installed capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2010-06-15

    The U.S. currently has 33 GW of installed wind capacity. Wind continues to gain ground, accounting for 42 percent of new capacity additions in the US in 2008.Globally, there are now 146 GW of wind capacity with an impressive and sustained growth trajectory that promises to dominate new generation capacities in many developing countries. The U.S., however, lags many European countries, with wind providing roughly 2 percent of electricity generation.

  6. High Capacity Composite Carbon Anodes | Department of Energy

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

    Capacity Composite Carbon Anodes High Capacity Composite Carbon Anodes 2012 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program and Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting PDF icon es114_pol_2012_o.pdf More Documents & Publications High Capacity Composite Carbon Anodes Fabricated by Autogenic Reactions Spherical Carbon Anodes Fabricated by Autogenic Reactions Vehicle Technologies Office Merit Review 2014: Metal-Based High Capacity Li-Ion Anodes

  7. Los Alamos Neutron Science Center gets capacity boost

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

    capacity and our availability for stockpile stewardship activities," said Kurt Schoenberg, deputy associate director for Experimental Physical Sciences. "The increased...

  8. *NEW!* Doubling Geothermal Generation Capacity by 2020: A Strategic

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Analysis | Department of Energy *NEW!* Doubling Geothermal Generation Capacity by 2020: A Strategic Analysis *NEW!* Doubling Geothermal Generation Capacity by 2020: A Strategic Analysis PDF icon NREL Doubling Geothermal Capacity.pdf More Documents & Publications Geothermal Exploration Policy Mechanisms Offshore Wind Jobs and Economic Development Impacts in the United States: Four Regional Scenarios track 1: systems analysis | geothermal 2015 peer review

  9. Design and Evaluation of Novel High Capacity Cathode Materials | Department

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

    of Energy 2 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program and Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting PDF icon es049_thackeray_2012_p.pdf More Documents & Publications Design and Evaluation of High Capacity Cathodes Vehicle Technologies Office Merit Review 2014: Design and Evaluation of High Capacity Cathodes Design and Evaluation of Novel High Capacity Cathode Materials

  10. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    531,456 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,337 528,637 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 531,456 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,337 528,637 1999-2014 Total Working Gas...

  11. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 1988-2013 Aquifers 284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 1999-2013 Depleted Fields 0 0 1999-2013 Total Working Gas...

  12. 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...

  13. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  14. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Connecticut - 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 S7. Summary statistics for natural gas - Connecticut, 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

  15. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  16. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  17. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 Maryland - 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 S22. Summary statistics for natural gas - Maryland, 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of Producing Gas Wells at End of Year 7 8 9 7 7 Production (million cubic feet) Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells 43 34 44 32 20 From Oil

  18. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  19. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 Minnesota - 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 S25. Summary statistics for natural gas - Minnesota, 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

  20. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  1. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 Fuel: Deliveries to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S31. Summary statistics for natural gas - New Hampshire, 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

  2. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8 North Carolina - 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 S35. Summary statistics for natural gas - North Carolina, 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

  3. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  4. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 South Carolina - 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 S42. Summary statistics for natural gas - South Carolina, 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

  5. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6 Washington - 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 S49. Summary statistics for natural gas - Washington, 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

  6. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    80 Wisconsin - 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 S51. Summary statistics for natural gas - Wisconsin, 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

  7. Total System Performance Assessment Peer Review Panel

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

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

  8. Determination of Total Solids in Biomass and Total Dissolved Solids in Liquid Process Samples: Laboratory Analytical Procedure (LAP)

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

    Total Solids in Biomass and Total Dissolved Solids in Liquid Process Samples Laboratory Analytical Procedure (LAP) Issue Date: 3/31/2008 A. Sluiter, B. Hames, D. Hyman, C. Payne, R. Ruiz, C. Scarlata, J. Sluiter, D. Templeton, and J. Wolfe Technical Report NREL/TP-510-42621 Revised March 2008 NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 * www.nrel.gov

  9. Table 11.6 Installed Nameplate Capacity of Fossil-Fuel Steam-Electric Generators With Environmental Equipment, 1985-2010 (Megawatts)

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

    Installed Nameplate Capacity of Fossil-Fuel Steam-Electric Generators With Environmental Equipment," " 1985-2010 (Megawatts)" "Year","Coal",,,,"Petroleum and Natural Gas",,,,"Total 1" ,,,"Flue Gas","Total 2",,,"Flue Gas","Total 2",,,"Flue Gas","Total 2"

  10. Table 5.9 Refinery Capacity and Utilization, 1949-2011

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

    9 Refinery Capacity and Utilization, 1949-2011 Year Operable Refineries 1 Operable Refineries Capacity Gross Input to Distillation Units 3 Utilization 4 On January 1 Annual Average 2 Number Thousand Barrels per Calendar Day Thousand Barrels Percent 1949 336 6,231 NA 2,027,928 89.2 1950 320 6,223 NA 2,182,828 92.5 1951 325 6,702 NA 2,467,445 97.5 1952 327 7,161 NA 2,536,142 93.8 1953 315 7,620 NA 2,651,068 93.1 1954 308 7,984 NA 2,651,992 88.8 1955 296 8,386 NA 2,854,137 92.2 1956 317 8,583 NA

  11. Surface and bulk modified high capacity layered oxide cathodes with low irreversible capacity loss

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Manthiram, Arumugam (Austin, TX); Wu, Yan (Austin, TX)

    2010-03-16

    The present invention includes compositions, surface and bulk modifications, and methods of making of (1-x)Li[Li.sub.1/3Mn.sub.2/3]O.sub.2.xLi[Mn.sub.0.5-yNi.sub.0.5-yCo.sub.2- y]O.sub.2 cathode materials having an O3 crystal structure with a x value between 0 and 1 and y value between 0 and 0.5, reducing the irreversible capacity loss in the first cycle by surface modification with oxides and bulk modification with cationic and anionic substitutions, and increasing the reversible capacity to close to the theoretical value of insertion/extraction of one lithium per transition metal ion (250-300 mAh/g).

  12. Coal companies invest in more longwall capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fiscor, S.

    2006-02-15

    This year's annual survey shows not much has changed since last year. The overall population stands at 47 mines operating 53 longwalls. CONSOL Energy remains the leading US longwall operator with 13 installations, followed by Arch Coal (5), Robert E. Murray (5) and Massey Energy (4). West Virginia remains the leading longwall mining state with 14 faces in 2005, followed by Pennsylvania (8), Alabama (7), Utah (7) and Colorado (5). A detailed table gives for each longwall installation, the ownership, seam height, cutting height, panel width and length, overburden, number of gate entries, depth of cut, model of equipment used (shearer, haulage system, roof support, face conveyor, stage loader, crusher, electrical controls and voltage to face). 1 photos., 2 tabs.

  13. Development of a high capacity longwall conveyor. Final technical report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sparks, C

    1982-05-01

    The objectives of this program were to develop, fabricate, and demonstrate a longwall conveying system capable of transporting coal at a rate of 9000 tons/day (1000 tons/hr) and capable of accommodating a surge rate of 20 tons/min. The equipment was required to have the structural durability to perform with an operating availability of 90%. A review of available literature and discussions with longwall operators identified the problem areas of conveyor design that required attention. The conveyor under this contract was designed and fabricated with special attention given to these areas, and also to be easily maintainable. The design utilized twin 300 hp drives and twin inboard 26-mm chain at 270 ft/min; predictions of capacity and reliability based on the design indicating that it would satisfy the program requirements. Conveyor components were critically tested and the complete conveyor was surface-tested, the results verifying the design specifications. In addition, an instrumentation system was developed with analysis by computer techniques to monitor the performance of the conveyor. The conveyor was installed at a selected mine site, and it was the intention to monitor its performance over the entire longwall panel. Monitoring of the conveyor performance was conducted over approximately one-third of the longwall panel, at which point further effort was suspended. However, during the monitored period, data collected from various sources showed the conveyor to have exhibited its capability of transporting coal at the desired rate, and also to have conformed to the program requirements of reliability and availability.

  14. Relative Economic Merits of Storage and Combustion Turbines for Meeting Peak Capacity Requirements under Increased Penetration of Solar Photovoltaics

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denholm, Paul; Diakov, Victor; Margolis, Robert

    2015-09-01

    Batteries with several hours of capacity provide an alternative to combustion turbines for meeting peak capacity requirements. Even when compared to state-of-the-art highly flexible combustion turbines, batteries can provide a greater operational value, which is reflected in a lower system-wide production cost. By shifting load and providing operating reserves, batteries can reduce the cost of operating the power system to a traditional electric utility. This added value means that, depending on battery life, batteries can have a higher cost than a combustion turbine of equal capacity and still produce a system with equal or lower overall life-cycle cost. For a utility considering investing in new capacity, the cost premium for batteries is highly sensitive to a variety of factors, including lifetime, natural gas costs, PV penetration, and grid generation mix. In addition, as PV penetration increases, the net electricity demand profile changes, which may reduce the amount of battery energy capacity needed to reliably meet peak demand.

  15. Operation and performance of a 350 kW (100 RT) single-effect/double-lift absorption chiller in a district heating network

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schweigler, C.J.; Preissner, M.; Demmel, S.; Hellmann, H.M.; Ziegler, F.F.

    1998-10-01

    The efficiency of combined heat, power, and cold production in total energy systems could be improved significantly if absorption chillers were available that could be driven with limited mass flows of low-temperature hot water. In the case of district heat-driven air conditioning, for example, currently available standard absorption chillers are often not applied because they cannot provide the low hot water return temperature and the specific cooling capacity per unit hot water mass flow that are required by many district heating networks. Above all, a drastic increase in the size of the machine (total heat exchanger area) due to low driving temperature differences if of concern in low-temperature applications. A new type of multistage lithium bromide/water absorption chiller has been developed for the summertime operating conditions of district heating networks. It provides large cooling of the district heating water (some 30 K) and large cooling capacity per unit hot water mass flow. Two pilot plants of this novel absorption chiller were designed within the framework of a joint project sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Technology (BMBF), a consortium of 15 district heating utilities, and two manufacturers. The plants have been operated since summer 1996 in the district heating networks of Berlin and Duesseldorf. This paper describes the concept, installation, and control strategy of the two pilot plants, and it surveys the performance and operating experience of the plants under varying practical conditions.

  16. ARM - Measurement - Shortwave broadband total downwelling irradiance

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

    total downwelling irradiance 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 : Shortwave broadband total downwelling irradiance The total diffuse and direct radiant energy that comes from some continuous range of directions, at wavelengths between 0.4 and 4 {mu}m, that is being emitted downwards. Categories Radiometric Instruments The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the

  17. Assessment of Factors Influencing Effective CO{sub 2} Storage Capacity and Injectivity in Eastern Gas Shales

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Godec, Michael

    2013-06-30

    Building upon advances in technology, production of natural gas from organic-rich shales is rapidly developing as a major hydrocarbon supply option in North America and around the world. The same technology advances that have facilitated this revolution - dense well spacing, horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing - may help to facilitate enhanced gas recovery (EGR) and carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) storage in these formations. The potential storage of CO {sub 2} in shales is attracting increasing interest, especially in Appalachian Basin states that have extensive shale deposits, but limited CO{sub 2} storage capacity in conventional reservoirs. The goal of this cooperative research project was to build upon previous and on-going work to assess key factors that could influence effective EGR, CO{sub 2} storage capacity, and injectivity in selected Eastern gas shales, including the Devonian Marcellus Shale, the Devonian Ohio Shale, the Ordovician Utica and Point Pleasant shale and equivalent formations, and the late Devonian-age Antrim Shale. The project had the following objectives: (1) Analyze and synthesize geologic information and reservoir data through collaboration with selected State geological surveys, universities, and oil and gas operators; (2) improve reservoir models to perform reservoir simulations to better understand the shale characteristics that impact EGR, storage capacity and CO{sub 2} injectivity in the targeted shales; (3) Analyze results of a targeted, highly monitored, small-scale CO{sub 2} injection test and incorporate into ongoing characterization and simulation work; (4) Test and model a smart particle early warning concept that can potentially be used to inject water with uniquely labeled particles before the start of CO{sub 2} injection; (5) Identify and evaluate potential constraints to economic CO{sub 2} storage in gas shales, and propose development approaches that overcome these constraints; and (6) Complete new basin-level characterizations for the CO{sub 2} storage capacity and injectivity potential of the targeted eastern shales. In total, these Eastern gas shales cover an area of over 116 million acres, may contain an estimated 6,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas in place, and have a maximum theoretical storage capacity of over 600 million metric tons. Not all of this gas in-place will be recoverable, and economics will further limit how much will be economic to produce using EGR techniques with CO{sub 2} injection. Reservoir models were developed and simulations were conducted to characterize the potential for both CO{sub 2} storage and EGR for the target gas shale formations. Based on that, engineering costing and cash flow analyses were used to estimate economic potential based on future natural gas prices and possible financial incentives. The objective was to assume that EGR and CO{sub 2} storage activities would commence consistent with the historical development practices. Alternative CO{sub 2} injection/EGR scenarios were considered and compared to well production without CO{sub 2} injection. These simulations were conducted for specific, defined model areas in each shale gas play. The resulting outputs were estimated recovery per typical well (per 80 acres), and the estimated CO{sub 2} that would be injected and remain in the reservoir (i.e., not produced), and thus ultimately assumed to be stored. The application of this approach aggregated to the entire area of the four shale gas plays concluded that they contain nearly 1,300 Tcf of both primary production and EGR potential, of which an estimated 460 Tcf could be economic to produce with reasonable gas prices and/or modest incentives. This could facilitate the storage of nearly 50 Gt of CO{sub 2} in the Marcellus, Utica, Antrim, and Devonian Ohio shales.

  18. Design Storm for Total Retention.pdf

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

    Storm Events for Select Western U.S. Cities (adapted from Energy Independence and Security Act Technical Guidance, USEPA, 2009) City 95th Percentile Event Rainfall Total...

  19. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  20. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  1. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  2. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  3. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  4. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  5. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  6. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  7. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  8. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  9. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  10. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  11. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  12. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  13. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  14. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  15. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  16. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2 New Jersey - 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 S32. Summary statistics for natural gas - New Jersey, 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

  17. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  18. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  19. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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

  20. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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