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


1

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

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

2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

2

Previous | Next | Table of Contents Research efforts are directed toward  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

. Using data from surface winds and heat and salt changes in the water, the model produces moving pictures prevention, mitigation, and remediation of harmful consequences. The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement optical depth and the abundance of ozone and water vapor. PNNL Chemical interactions and transformations

Schwartz, Stephen E.

3

Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer During  

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

Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer During Sustained Pumping at the Monticello, Utah, Zero-Valent Iron Treatment Cells Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer During Sustained Pumping at the Monticello, Utah, Zero-Valent Iron Treatment Cells Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer During Sustained Pumping at the Monticello, Utah, Zero-Valent Iron Treatment Cells Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer During Sustained Pumping at the Monticello, Utah, Zero-Valent Iron Treatment Cells More Documents & Publications Performance Assessment and Recommendations for Rejuvenation of a Permeable Reactive Barrier: Cotter Corporation's Cañon City, Colorado, Uranium

4

Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer During  

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

Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer During Sustained Pumping at the Monticello, Utah, Zero-Valent Iron Treatment Cells Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer During Sustained Pumping at the Monticello, Utah, Zero-Valent Iron Treatment Cells Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer During Sustained Pumping at the Monticello, Utah, Zero-Valent Iron Treatment Cells Ground-Water Table and Chemical Changes in an Alluvial Aquifer During Sustained Pumping at the Monticello, Utah, Zero-Valent Iron Treatment Cells More Documents & Publications Performance Assessment and Recommendations for Rejuvenation of a Permeable Reactive Barrier: Cotter Corporation's Cañon City, Colorado, Uranium

5

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Barrash, Warren

6

Ground penetrating radar characterization of wood piles and the water table in Back Bay, Boston  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys are performed to determine the depth to the water table and the tops of wood piles beneath a residential structure at 122 Beacon Street in Back Bay, Boston. The area of Boston known ...

LeFranois, Suzanne O'Neil, 1980-

2003-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

7

Water table recovery in a reclaimed surface lignite mine, Grimes County, Texas  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Water table recovery in four reclaimed mine blocks containing replaced overburden has been monitored at Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine in Grimes County, Texas since 1986. Recovery analysis was conducted based on data recorded at 27 wells installed...

Peace, Kelley H.

1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

8

Direct Water-Cooled Power Electronics Substrate Packaging | Department...  

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

Direct Water-Cooled Power Electronics Substrate Packaging Direct Water-Cooled Power Electronics Substrate Packaging 2010 DOE Vehicle Technologies and Hydrogen Programs Annual Merit...

9

CORRELATION BETWEEN RAINFALL PATTERNS AND THE WATER TABLE IN THEGENERAL SEPARATIONS AREA OF THE SAVANNAH RIVERSITE  

SciTech Connect

The objective of the study was to evaluate rainfall and water table elevation data in search of a correlation that could be used to understand and predict water elevation changes. This information will be useful in placing screen zones for future monitoring wells and operations of groundwater treatment units. Fifteen wells in the General Separations Area (GSA) at Savannah River Site were evaluated from 1986 through 2001. The study revealed that the water table does respond to rainfall with minimal delay. (Water level information was available monthly, which restricted the ability to evaluate a shorter delay period.) Water elevations were found to be related to the cumulative sum (Q-Delta Sum) of the difference between the average rainfall for a specific month and the actual rainfall for that month, calculated from an arbitrary starting point. Water table elevations could also be correlated between wells, but using the right well for correlation was very important. The strongest correlation utilized a quadratic equation that takes into account the rainfall in a specific area and the rainfall from an adjacent area that contributes through a horizontal flow. Specific values vary from well to well as a result of geometry and underground variations. R2's for the best models ranged up to 0.96. The data in the report references only GSA wells but other wells (including confined water tables) on the site have been observed to return similar water level fluctuation patterns.

Smith, C.

2009-08-10T23:59:59.000Z

10

A Study to Verify the Material Surface Concept of Water Table by Examining Analytical and Numerical Models.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

. This term defines the water table as having two simultaneous properties: 1) the pressure along the surface is atmospheric pressure, and 2) the water table is fixed to the material, i.e., a set of water particles. This article makes an attempt to explain...

Dadi, Sireesh Kumar

2011-10-21T23:59:59.000Z

11

Water Analytical Data Tables for 1CQ11.xls  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

Analytical Results for Water Samples-First Quarter CY 2011 Analytical Results for Water Samples-First Quarter CY 2011 This page intentionally left blank Appendix C1 Analytical Results for Water Samples - First Quarter CY 2011 LOCATION_CODE LOCATION_TYPE DATE SAMPLED LAB REQUISITION NUMBER CAS ANALYTE SAMPLE ID RESULT UNITS LAB QUALIFIERS SAMPLE TYPE DETECTION LIMIT UNCER- TAINTY DATA VALIDATION QUALIFIERS A4 POND SL 1/12/2011 11013559 NO3+NO2 AS N Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen N001 0.043 mg/L J F 0.019 valid A4 POND SL 1/12/2011 11013559 7440-61-1 Uranium N001 9 ug/L F 0.02 valid B5 POND SL 1/12/2011 11013559 7440-61-1 Uranium N001 7.2 ug/L F 0.02 valid GS13 SL 1/12/2011 11013559 NO3+NO2 AS N Nitrate + Nitrite as Nitrogen N001 33 mg/L F 0.19 valid PLFSEEPINF TS 1/19/2011

12

Water Analytical Data Tables for 1CQ10.xls  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

Water Samples⎯First Quarter CY 2010 Water Samples⎯First Quarter CY 2010 This page intentionally left blank Appendix C Analytical Results for Water Samples - First Quarter CY 2010 LOCATION_CODE LOCATION_TYPE DATE SAMPLED LAB REQUISITION NUMBER CAS ANALYTE SAMPLE ID RESULT UNITS LAB QUALIFIERS SAMPLE TYPE DETECTION LIMIT UNCER- TAINTY DATA VALIDATION QUALIFIERS 70193 WL 2/10/2010 10022851 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane N001 0.16 ug/L U F 0.16 valid 70193 WL 2/10/2010 10022851 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane N001 0.2 ug/L U F 0.2 valid 70193 WL 2/10/2010 10022851 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane N001 0.32 ug/L U F 0.32 valid 70193 WL 2/10/2010 10022851 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene N001 0.14 ug/L U F 0.14 valid 70193 WL 2/10/2010 10022851 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene N001

13

Water Analytical Data Tables for 1CQ12.xls  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

C C Analytical Results for Water Samples-First Quarter CY 2012 This page intentionally left blank Appendix C1 Analytical Results for Water Samples - First Quarter CY 2012 LOCATION_CODE LOCATION_TYPE DATE SAMPLED LAB REQUISITION NUMBER CAS ANALYTE SAMPLE ID RESULT UNITS LAB QUALIFIERS SAMPLE TYPE DETECTION LIMIT UNCER- TAINTY DATA VALIDATION QUALIFIERS 70193 WL 2/16/2012 12024361 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane N001 0.16 ug/L U F 0.16 F 70193 WL 2/16/2012 12024361 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane N001 0.21 ug/L U F 0.21 F 70193 WL 2/16/2012 12024361 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane N001 0.27 ug/L U F 0.27 F 70193 WL 2/16/2012 12024361 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene N001 0.23 ug/L U F 0.23 F 70193 WL 2/16/2012 12024361 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene N001 0.21 ug/L U F 0.21 F 70193

14

Evaluating the Effects of Underground Nuclear Testing Below the Water Table on Groundwater and Radionuclide Migration in the  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Evaluating the Effects of Underground Nuclear Testing Below the Water Table on Groundwater, using FEHM, evaluate perturbed groundwater behavior associated with underground nuclear tests to an instantaneous pressurization event caused by a nuclear test when different permeability and porosity

15

Supplemental Guide for Seasonal High Water Table Indicators in Georgia's Onsite Wastewater Manual Section C: Flatwoods Region  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1 Supplemental Guide for Seasonal High Water Table Indicators in Georgia's Onsite Wastewater Manual) are part of the Atlantic Coast Flatwoods that run along the eastern shore of the US. They fall within

Ma, Lena

16

Pulse radiolysis of liquid water using picosecond electron pulses produced by a table-top terawatt laser system  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Pulse radiolysis of liquid water using picosecond electron pulses produced by a table-top terawatt into a supersonic helium gas jet are used to ionize liquid water. The decay of the hydrated electrons produced electron generator is shown, for the first time, to produce sufficient charge to conduct time resolved

Umstadter, Donald

17

Anoxic Plume Attenuation in a Fluctuating Water Table System: Impact of 100-D Area In Situ Redox Manipulation on Downgradient Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations  

SciTech Connect

Anoxic Plume Attenuation in a Fluctuating Water Table System: Impact of 100-D Area In Situ Redox Manipulation on Downgradient Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations

Williams, Mark D.; Vermeul, Vincent R.; Oostrom, Martinus; Evans, John C.; Fruchter, Jonathan S.; Istok, J. D.; Humphrey, M. D.; Lanigan, David C.; Szecsody, James E.; White, Mark D.; Wietsma, Thomas W.; Cole, Charles R.

1999-06-14T23:59:59.000Z

18

Quasi-three dimensional ground-water modeling of the hydrologic influence of paleozoic rocks on the ground-water table at Yucca Mountain, Nevada  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The proposed high-level radioactive waste repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has created a need to understand the, ground-water system at the site. One of the important hydrologic characteristics is a steep gradient on the ground-water table...

Lee, Si-Yong

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

19

A mathematical model for simulation of a water table profile between two parallel subsurface drains using fractional derivatives  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

By considering the initial and boundary conditions corresponding to parallel subsurface drains, the linear form of a one-dimensional fractional Boussinesq equation was solved and an analytical mathematical model was developed to predict the water table ... Keywords: Bess algorithm, Fractional Boussinesq equation, Glover-Dumm's model, Heterogeneity, Subsurface drainage

Behrouz Mehdinejadiani; Abd Ali Naseri; Hossein Jafari; Afshin Ghanbarzadeh; Dumitru Baleanu

2013-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

20

Table Search (or Ranking Tables)  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Halevy, Alon

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


21

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

SciTech Connect

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

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

1991-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

22

Direct Power and Water Corporation | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Power and Water Corporation Power and Water Corporation Jump to: navigation, search Name Direct Power and Water Corporation Place Albuquerque, New Mexico Zip 87107 Product DP&W is specialised in engineering, designing and installing turnkey photovoltaic systems. Coordinates 35.08418°, -106.648639° Loading map... {"minzoom":false,"mappingservice":"googlemaps3","type":"ROADMAP","zoom":14,"types":["ROADMAP","SATELLITE","HYBRID","TERRAIN"],"geoservice":"google","maxzoom":false,"width":"600px","height":"350px","centre":false,"title":"","label":"","icon":"","visitedicon":"","lines":[],"polygons":[],"circles":[],"rectangles":[],"copycoords":false,"static":false,"wmsoverlay":"","layers":[],"controls":["pan","zoom","type","scale","streetview"],"zoomstyle":"DEFAULT","typestyle":"DEFAULT","autoinfowindows":false,"kml":[],"gkml":[],"fusiontables":[],"resizable":false,"tilt":0,"kmlrezoom":false,"poi":true,"imageoverlays":[],"markercluster":false,"searchmarkers":"","locations":[{"text":"","title":"","link":null,"lat":35.08418,"lon":-106.648639,"alt":0,"address":"","icon":"","group":"","inlineLabel":"","visitedicon":""}]}

23

Direct Use for Building Heat and Hot Water Presentation Slides and Text Version  

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

Download presentation slides from the DOE Office of Indian Energy webinar on direct use for building heat and hot water.

24

Reservoir Management in Mediterranean Climates through the European Water Framework Directive  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

By 2015, member states to the Water Framework Directive arestate and a Mediterranean-climate country, surface water andPlans member states may designate surface water bodies as

O'Reilly, Clare; Silberblatt, Rafael

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

25

Water Resources Management Degree Program Examples The tables below show some of the ways in which a student can tailor the Water Resources Management curriculum to fit their interests and needs.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Water Resources Management Degree Program Examples The tables below show some of the ways in which a student can tailor the Water Resources Management curriculum to fit their interests and needs. Each Hydrogeology Category B - Water Resources Institutions and Public Decision Making Processes Journalism 315

Sheridan, Jennifer

26

"Table HC12.8 Water Heating Characteristics by Midwest Census Region, 2005"  

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

8 Water Heating Characteristics by Midwest Census Region, 2005" 8 Water Heating Characteristics by Midwest Census Region, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,,"Midwest Census Region" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)" ,,,"Census Division" ,,"Total Midwest" "Water Heating Characteristics",,,"East North Central","West North Central" "Total",111.1,25.6,17.7,7.9 "Number of Water Heaters" "1.",106.3,24.5,17.1,7.4 "2 or More",3.7,0.9,0.5,0.4 "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,"Q","Q","Q" "Housing Units Served by Main Water Heater" "One Housing Unit",99.7,23.5,16.2,7.3 "Two or More Housing Units",10.3,1.9,1.4,0.5 "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,"Q","Q","Q"

27

"Table HC14.8 Water Heating Characteristics by West Census Region, 2005"  

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

8 Water Heating Characteristics by West Census Region, 2005" 8 Water Heating Characteristics by West Census Region, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,,"West Census Region" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)" ,,,"Census Division" ,,"Total West" "Water Heating Characteristics",,,"Mountain","Pacific" "Total",111.1,24.2,7.6,16.6 "Number of Water Heaters" "1.",106.3,23.2,7.1,16.1 "2 or More",3.7,1,0.4,0.6 "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,"Q","Q","N" "Housing Units Served by Main Water Heater" "One Housing Unit",99.7,21.9,7.1,14.8 "Two or More Housing Units",10.3,2.3,0.4,1.9 "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,"Q","Q","N"

28

"Table HC13.8 Water Heating Characteristics by South Census Region, 2005"  

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

8 Water Heating Characteristics by South Census Region, 2005" 8 Water Heating Characteristics by South Census Region, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,,"South Census Region" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions)" ,,,"Census Division" ,,"Total South" "Water Heating Characteristics",,,"South Atlantic","East South Central","West South Central" "Total",111.1,40.7,21.7,6.9,12.1 "Number of Water Heaters" "1.",106.3,39,21.1,6.6,11.3 "2 or More",3.7,1.5,0.5,0.3,0.7 "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,"Q","Q","N","Q" "Housing Units Served by Main Water Heater" "One Housing Unit",99.7,38.2,20.2,6.7,11.3 "Two or More Housing Units",10.3,2.4,1.5,0.2,0.7

29

"Table B26. Water-Heating Energy Sources, Floorspace, 1999"  

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

6. Water-Heating Energy Sources, Floorspace, 1999" 6. Water-Heating Energy Sources, Floorspace, 1999" ,"Total Floorspace (million square feet)" ,"All Buildings","All Buildings with Water Heating","Water-Heating Energy Sources Used (more than one may apply)" ,,,"Electricity","Natural Gas","Fuel Oil","District Heat","Propane" "All Buildings ................",67338,56115,24171,29196,2218,4182,1371 "Building Floorspace" "(Square Feet)" "1,001 to 5,000 ...............",6774,4280,2307,1719,"Q","Q","Q" "5,001 to 10,000 ..............",8238,5748,2287,3204,"Q","Q","Q" "10,001 to 25,000 .............",11153,9000,4220,4221,224,164,493

30

Burning of Hydrocarbon Fuels Directly in a Water-Based Heat Carrier  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A principal possibility of burning hydrocarbon fuels directly in a water-based heat carrier is demonstrated. The first experimental results are presented by an example of burning acetylene in water with initia...

V. S. Teslenko; V. I. Manzhalei; R. N. Medvedev

2010-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

31

Finite - difference modeling of the Yucca Mountain, Nevada Area: a study of the regional water table gradients based on hydraulic conductivity contrasts  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The Nevada Yucca Mountain site is being investigated to determine if it is a suitable site for the construction of a high-level nuclear waste repository. A feature of concern north of the selected site is an abrupt rise in the water table. This high...

Davidson, Timothy Ross

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

32

Direct Water-Cooled Power Electronics Substrate Packaging  

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

Water-Cooled Power Electronics Substrate Packaging Randy H. Wiles Oak Ridge National Laboratory June 10, 2010 Project ID: APE001 This presentation does not contain any proprietary,...

33

An evaluation of household drinking water treatment systems in Peru : the table filter and the safe water system  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

(cont.) storage, and education. Tests on the SWSs in Peru demonstrated 99.6% E.coli removal and 95% total coliform removal. Only 30% of the SWSs tested contained water at or above the WHO-recommended concentration of free ...

Coulbert, Brittany, 1981-

2005-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

34

Help:Tables | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Tables Tables Jump to: navigation, search Tables may be authored in wiki pages using either XHTML table elements directly, or using wikicode formatting to define the table. XHTML table elements and their use are well described on various web pages and will not be discussed here. The benefit of wikicode is that the table is constructed of character symbols which tend to make it easier to perceive the table structure in the article editing view compared to XHTML table elements. As a general rule, it is best to avoid using a table unless you need one. Table markup often complicates page editing. Contents 1 Wiki table markup summary 2 Basics 2.1 Table headers 2.2 Caption 3 XHTML attributes 3.1 Attributes on tables 3.2 Attributes on cells 3.3 Attributes on rows 3.4 HTML colspan and rowspan

35

DOE Office of Indian Energy Foundational Course on Direct Use for Building Heat and Hot Water  

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

Direct Use for Building Direct Use for Building Heat and Hot Water Webinar (text version) Below is the text version of the Webinar titled "DOE Office of Indian Energy Foundational Courses Renewable Energy Technologies: Direct Use for Building Heat and Hot Water." Slide 1 Amy Hollander: Hello, I'm Amy Hollander with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Welcome to today's webinar on Building Heat and Hot Water sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. This webinar is being recorded from DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory's new state-of-the-art net zero

36

Tribal Renewable Energy Foundational Course: Direct Use for Building Heat and Hot Water  

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

Watch the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy foundational course webinar on direct use for building heat and hot water by clicking on the .swf link below. You can also download the...

37

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

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

38

2003 CBECS Detailed Tables: Summary  

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

2003 Detailed Tables 2003 Detailed Tables 2003 CBECS Detailed Tables most recent available Released: September 2008 Building Characteristics | Consumption & Expenditures | End-Use Consumption In the 2003 CBECS, the survey procedures for strip shopping centers and enclosed malls ("mall buildings") were changed from those used in previous surveys, and, as a result, mall buildings are now excluded from most of the 2003 CBECS tables. Therefore, some data in the majority of the tables are not directly comparable with previous CBECS tables, all of which included mall buildings. Some numbers in the 2003 tables will be slightly lower than earlier surveys since the 2003 figures do not include mall buildings. See "Change in Data Collection Procedures for Malls" for a more detailed explanation.

39

Roger Gold to Direct UNL Water CenterPacific Northwest Destination of Annual Water Resources  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Schuyler, james jura, will explain the Bonneville Power administration at Portland , Ore. jura, a Bonneville administrator, will explain the largest supplier of electricity in the U.S. At the Washington. Bill Powers was director of the Water Resources Center for eight years. He will continue to be active

Nebraska-Lincoln, University of

40

Electrochimica Acta 50 (2004) 205210 A direct analysis of nanomolar metal ions in environmental water  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

pollution is one of the most serious subjects since water is essential for the life. Especially heavy metalElectrochimica Acta 50 (2004) 205­210 A direct analysis of nanomolar metal ions in environmental Stripping Voltammetry (SWASV) was combined with microfabricated microelectrodes to analyze metal ions

Kwak, Juhyoun

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


41

Figure 3-11 South Table Mountain Utilities Map  

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

FTLB AMMO LEGEND Gas Existing Buildings Electrical Figure 3-11 South Table Mountain Utilities Map Sewer Communication Water Surface Drainage Storm Water WATER TANK FACILITIES...

42

Visualization of water on through?plane direction of GDL using X?ray radiography  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

In this investigation we visualized water distribution and behavior of water on through plane direction of GDL (Gas Diffusion Layer) which is one of components of PEMFC using X?ray radiography. In order to investigate water distribution and behavior at GDL of PEMFC the facilities was set up at the 7B2 beam line in Pohang Accelerator Laboratory. The phenomena of cathode side GDL is more important because the cathode side GDL has more water than the anode side. For this reason the cathode side GDL was targeted and test section (Figure 1) was made to make similar boundary condition with a cathode side GDL of operating PEMFC. GDL faced two single channels. One is air channel as cathode gas channel of PEMFC and the other is liquid channel as cathode catalyst layer. Water is produced in cathode catalyst layer and almost of this water transport through cathode GDL. Because of this liquid channel was adopted as catalyst layer. Images of water distribution were recorded per 4 second under various liquid pressure conditions. Water content was calculated from these images using mathematic process.

Jongrok Kim; TaeJoo Kim; Junho Je; Massoud Kaviany; Sang Young Son; MooHwan Kim

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

43

Visualization of water on through-plane direction of GDL using X-ray radiography  

SciTech Connect

In this investigation, we visualized water distribution and behavior of water on through plane direction of GDL (Gas Diffusion Layer), which is one of components of PEMFC, using X-ray radiography. In order to investigate water distribution and behavior at GDL of PEMFC, the facilities was set up at the 7B2 beam line in Pohang Accelerator Laboratory. The phenomena of cathode side GDL is more important because the cathode side GDL has more water than the anode side. For this reason, the cathode side GDL was targeted and test section (Figure 1) was made to make similar boundary condition with a cathode side GDL of operating PEMFC. GDL faced two single channels. One is air channel as cathode gas channel of PEMFC and the other is liquid channel as cathode catalyst layer. Water is produced in cathode catalyst layer and almost of this water transport through cathode GDL. Because of this, liquid channel was adopted as catalyst layer. Images of water distribution were recorded per 4 second under various liquid pressure conditions. Water content was calculated from these images using mathematic process.

Kim, Jongrok; Je, Junho; Kim, MooHwan [Department of Mechanical Engineering, POSTECH, Pohang (Korea, Republic of); Kim, TaeJoo [The Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon (Korea, Republic of); Kaviany, Massoud [Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (United States); Son, Sang Young [Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati (United States)

2010-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

44

"Table HC10.8 Water Heating Characteristics by U.S. Census Region, 2005"  

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

8 Water Heating Characteristics by U.S. Census Region, 2005" 8 Water Heating Characteristics by U.S. Census Region, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,"Housing Units (millions)","U.S. Census Region" "Water Heating Characteristics",,"Northeast","Midwest","South","West" "Total",111.1,20.6,25.6,40.7,24.2 "Number of Water Heaters" "1.",106.3,19.6,24.5,39,23.2 "2 or More",3.7,0.3,0.9,1.5,1 "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,0.7,"Q","Q","Q" "Housing Units Served by Main Water Heater" "One Housing Unit",99.7,16.1,23.5,38.2,21.9 "Two or More Housing Units",10.3,3.7,1.9,2.4,2.3 "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,0.7,"Q","Q","Q"

45

FY 2013 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Current Enacted Congressional Approp. Approp. * Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy........................................ 1,771,721 1,809,638 2,337,000 +527,362 +29.1% Electricity delivery and energy reliability......................................... 138,170 139,103 143,015 +3,912 +2.8% Nuclear energy................................................................................ 717,817 765,391 770,445 +5,054 +0.7% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology.................................................................. -16,500 -- --

46

FY 2009 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Current Current Congressional Op. Plan Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy.......................... -- 1,722,407 1,255,393 -467,014 -27.1% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................... -- 138,556 134,000 -4,556 -3.3% Nuclear energy................................................................. -- 961,665 853,644 -108,021 -11.2% Legacy management........................................................ -- 33,872 -- -33,872 -100.0% Energy supply and conservation Operation and maintenance..........................................

47

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

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

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

48

Table EA-1. Stream-water dissolved Mn at basin outflow of perennial stream at Inspiration Dam illustrating decreases in dissolved Mn in response to remediation efforts. Dissolved Mn in  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

-Jul-98 2.8E-04 24-Nov-98 3.6E-04 11-Feb-99 1.2E-05 Remedial ground-water pumping begins 24-Mar-99 8.9E) and ground-water (GW) chemistry data for streambed sediment sampling sites. Dissolved concentrations in moleTable EA-1. Stream-water dissolved Mn at basin outflow of perennial stream at Inspiration Dam

49

Direct  

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

interactions, and the pollutant emission is hence directly proportional to the bulk neutral density. Simultaneously monitoring the total emission at 1040 nm and the...

50

Isolating Effects of Water Table Dynamics, Terrain, and Soil Moisture Heterogeneity on the Atmospheric Boundary Layer Using Coupled Models  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

depth (PBLD), (b) vertical wind speed (w), (c) latent heatdepth (PBLD), (b) vertical wind speed (w), (c) latent heatdepth (PBLD) and (b) vertical wind speed (w) versus water

Rihani, Jehan

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

51

A Fully Integrated Nanosystem of Semiconductor Nanowires for Direct Solar Water Splitting  

SciTech Connect

Artificial photosynthesis, the biomimetic approach to converting sunlight?s energy directly into chemical fuels, aims to imitate nature by using an integrated system of nanostructures, each of which plays a specific role in the sunlight-to-fuel conversion process. Here we describe a fully integrated system of nanoscale photoelectrodes assembled from inorganic nanowires for direct solar water splitting. Similar to the photosynthetic system in a chloroplast, the artificial photosynthetic system comprises two semiconductor light absorbers with large surface area, an interfacial layer for charge transport, and spatially separated cocatalysts to facilitate the water reduction and oxidation. Under simulated sunlight, a 0.12percent solar-to-fuel conversion efficiency is achieved, which is comparable to that of natural photosynthesis. The result demonstrates the possibility of integrating material components into a functional system that mimics the nanoscopic integration in chloroplasts. It also provides a conceptual blueprint of modular design that allows incorporation of newly discovered components for improved performance.

Liu, Chong; Tang, Jinyao; Chen, HaoMing; Liu, Bin; Yang, Peidong

2013-02-21T23:59:59.000Z

52

"Table HC3.8 Water Heating Characteristics by Owner-Occupied Housing Unit, 2005"  

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

8 Water Heating Characteristics by Owner-Occupied Housing Unit, 2005" 8 Water Heating Characteristics by Owner-Occupied Housing Unit, 2005" " Million U.S. Housing Units" ,," Owner-Occupied Housing Units (millions)","Type of Owner-Occupied Housing Unit" ,"U.S. Housing Units (millions" ,,,"Single-Family Units",,"Apartments in Buildings With--" "Water Heating Characteristics",,,"Detached","Attached","2 to 4 Units","5 or More Units","Mobile Homes" "Total",111.1,78.1,64.1,4.2,1.8,2.3,5.7 "Number of Water Heaters" "1.",106.3,74.5,60.9,4,1.8,2.2,5.5 "2 or More",3.7,3.3,3,"Q","Q","Q","Q" "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,0.3,"Q","Q","N","Q","Q"

53

"Table HC4.8 Water Heating Characteristics by Renter-Occupied Housing Unit, 2005"  

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

8 Water Heating Characteristics by Renter-Occupied Housing Unit, 2005" 8 Water Heating Characteristics by Renter-Occupied Housing Unit, 2005" " 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--" "Water Heating Characteristics",,,"Detached","Attached","2 to 4 Units","5 or More Units","Mobile Homes" "Total",111.1,33,8,3.4,5.9,14.4,1.2 "Number of Water Heaters" "1.",106.3,31.9,7.9,3.4,5.8,13.7,1.1 "2 or More",3.7,0.4,"Q","Q","Q","Q","N" "Do Not Use Hot Water",1.1,0.7,"Q","Q","Q",0.6,"Q"

54

Preweanling Rats Solve the Morris Water Task via Directional Navigation Katherine G. Akers, Felicha T. Candelaria, and Derek A. Hamilton  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Preweanling Rats Solve the Morris Water Task via Directional Navigation Katherine G. Akers, Felicha T. Candelaria, and Derek A. Hamilton University of New Mexico Adult rats show a preference preweanling rats with a newly developed ability to perform the water task also solve the task via directional

Hamilton, Derek

55

CBECS 1992 - Building Characteristics, Detailed Tables  

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

Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Percent of Buildings and Floorspace by Census Region, 1992 Percent of Buildings and Floorspace by Census Region, 1992 The following 70 tables present extensive cross-tabulations of commercial buildings characteristics. These data are from the Buildings Characteristics Survey portion of the 1992 CBECS. The "Quick-Reference Guide," indicates the major topics of each table. Directions for calculating an approximate relative standard error (RSE) for each estimate in the tables are presented in Figure A1, "Use of RSE Row and Column Factor." The Glossary contains the definitions of the terms used in the tables. See the preceding "At A Glance" section for highlights of the detailed tables. Table Organization

56

Conversion Tables  

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

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - Conversion Tables Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - Conversion Tables Contents taken from Glossary: Carbon Dioxide and Climate, 1990. ORNL/CDIAC-39, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Third Edition. Edited by: Fred O'Hara Jr. 1 - International System of Units (SI) Prefixes 2 - Useful Quantities in CO2 3 - Common Conversion Factors 4 - Common Energy Unit Conversion Factors 5 - Geologic Time Scales 6 - Factors and Units for Calculating Annual CO2 Emissions Using Global Fuel Production Data Table 1. International System of Units (SI) Prefixes Prefix SI Symbol Multiplication Factor exa E 1018 peta P 1015 tera T 1012 giga G 109 mega M 106 kilo k 103 hecto h 102 deka da 10 deci d 10-1 centi c 10-2

57

The hydroelectric problem of porous rocks: inversion of the position of the water table from self-potential data  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......Potential Field and Applied Geophysics The hydroelectric problem of porous rocks: inversion...Green's functions for the coupled hydroelectric problem yields an integral equation...water flow through the electrokinetic (hydroelectric) coupling (e.g. Jouniaux et al......

A. Revil; V. Naudet; J. D. Meunier

2004-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

58

"Table B32. Water-Heating Energy Sources, Floorspace for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003"  

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

2. Water-Heating Energy Sources, Floorspace for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003" 2. Water-Heating Energy Sources, Floorspace for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003" ,"Total Floorspace (million square feet)" ,"All Buildings*","Buildings with Water Heating","Water-Heating Energy Sources Used (more than one may apply)" ,,,"Elec- tricity","Natural Gas","Fuel Oil","District Heat","Propane" "All Buildings* ...............",64783,56478,27490,28820,1880,3088,1422 "Building Floorspace" "(Square Feet)" "1,001 to 5,000 ...............",6789,4759,2847,1699,116,"N",169 "5,001 to 10,000 ..............",6585,5348,2821,2296,"Q","Q",205 "10,001 to 25,000 .............",11535,9562,4809,4470,265,"Q",430

59

A Fresh Perspective for Managing Water in California: Insights from Applying the European Water Framework Directive to the Russian River  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

environmental and economic impacts associated with water managementfor environmental, water resources, and economic managementRiver basin water management, by establishing environmental

Grantham, Ted; Christian-Smith, Juliet; Kondolf, G. Mathias; Scheuer, Stefan

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

60

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for PDF format Excel logo Spreadsheets are provided in excel 1 to117 - Complete set of Supplemental Tables PDF Energy Consumption by Sector (Census Division) Table 1. New England XLS PDF Table 2. Middle Atlantic XLS PDF Table 3. East North Central XLS PDF Table 4. West North Central XLS PDF Table 5. South Atlantic XLS PDF Table 6. East South Central XLS PDF Table 7. West South Central XLS PDF Table 8. Mountain XLS PDF Table 9. Pacific XLS PDF Table 10. Total United States XLS PDF Energy Prices by Sector (Census Division) Table 11. New England XLS PDF Table 12. Middle Atlantic XLS PDF Table 13. East North Central XLS PDF Table 14. West North Central XLS PDF Table 15. South Atlantic XLS PDF Table 16. East South Central

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


61

Thermal performance analysis of a direct-expansion solar-assisted heat pump water heater  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A direct-expansion solar-assisted heat pump water heater (DX-SAHPWH) is described, which can supply hot water for domestic use during the whole year. The system mainly employs a bare flat-plate collector/evaporator with a surface area of 4.2m2, an electrical rotary-type hermetic compressor, a hot water tank with the volume of 150L and a thermostatic expansion valve. R-22 is used as working fluid in the system. A simulation model based on lumped and distributed parameter approach is developed to predict the thermal performance of the system. Given the structure parameters, meteorological parameters, time step and final water temperature, the numerical model can output operational parameters, such as heat capacity, system COP and collector efficiency. Comparisons between the simulation results and the experimental measurements show that the model is able to give satisfactory predictions. The effect of various parameters, including solar radiation, ambient temperature, wind speed and compressor speed, has been analyzed on the thermal performance of the system.

X.Q. Kong; D. Zhang; Y. Li; Q.M. Yang

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

62

General features of direct-cycle, supercritical-pressure, light-water-cooled reactors  

SciTech Connect

The concept of direct-cycle, supercritical-pressure, light-water-cooled reactors is developed. Breeding is possible in the tight lattice core. The power output can be maximized in the fast converter reactor. The gross thermal efficiency of the high temperature reactor adopting Inconel as fuel cladding is expected to be 44.8%. The plant system is similar to the supercritical-fossil-fired power plant which adopts once-through type coolant circulation system. The volume and height of the containment are approximately half of the BWR. The basic safety principles follows those of LWRs. The reactor will solve the economic problems of LWR and LMFBR.

Oka, Y.; Koshizuka, S. [Univ. of Tokyo (Japan). Nuclear Engineering Research Lab.

1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

63

DOE Office of Indian Energy Foundational Course on Direct Use for Building Heat and Hot Water  

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

DIRECT USE FOR BUILDING HEAT & HOT WATER Presented by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Course Outline 2 What we will cover...  About the DOE Office of Indian Energy Education Initiative  Course Introduction  Solar Thermal and Solar Ventilation Air Pre-Heat - Resources, Technology, Examples & Cost, and References  Biomass Heat - Resources, Technology, Examples & Cost, and References  Geothermal Building Heat - Resources, Technology, Examples & Cost, and References  Additional Information & Resources Introduction The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs is responsible for assisting Tribes with energy planning and development, infrastructure, energy costs, and electrification of Indian

64

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

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

i i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................................II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................... 4 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 6 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA) .................... 6

65

Quasi-three dimensional ground-water modeling of the hydrologic influence of paleozoic rocks on the ground-water table at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

??The proposed high-level radioactive waste repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has created a need to understand the, ground-water system at the site. One of (more)

Lee, Si-Yong

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

66

New test methodologies to analyse direct expansion solar assisted heat pumps for domestic hot water  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract Since there are not specific standards for testing direct expansion solar assisted heat pumps for domestic hot water, new testing methodologies are proposed supported by laboratory experiments. Two methodologies were developed for performance measurement: modified BIN method and long term performance prediction with a TRNSYS model validated with specific experimental conditions. The long term performance prediction is a methodology similar to the already obtained for solar thermal systems. A system was tested in Lisbon during one year, covering almost all possible local weather conditions. The hot water tapping test cycle used was in agreement with recent standards EN16147:2011 or EN15316-3-1:2007. The influence of average daily air temperature, dew point temperature and solar irradiation was analysed. The seasonal performance factor was calculated for two cities in Portugal (Lisbon and Porto) and for additional four cities in Europe (Davos, Athens, Helsinki and Strasburg). The establishment of a procedure to calculate the seasonal performance of this kind of systems is very important according to the directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Jorge Faco; Maria Joo Carvalho

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

67

Direct dose to water dosimetry for pretreatment IMRT verification using a modified EPID  

SciTech Connect

Purpose: Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) are high resolution systems that produce electronic dose maps with minimal time required for equipment setup, and therefore potentially present a time-saving alternative for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) pretreatment verification. A modified commercial EPID was investigated operated with an opaque sheet blocking the optical signal produced in the phosphor layer as a precursor to a switched mode dual dosimetry-imaging EPID system. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using this system for direct dose to water dosimetry for pretreatment IMRT verification. Methods: A Varian amorphous silicon EPID was modified by placing an opaque sheet between the Gd{sub 2}S{sub 2}O:Tb phosphor layer and the photodiode array to block the optical photons. The EPID was thus converted to a direct-detecting system (dEPID), in which the high energy radiation deposits energy directly in the photodiode array. The copper build-up was replaced with d{sub max} solid water. Sixty-one IMRT beams of varying complexity were delivered to the EPID, to EDR2 dosimetric film and to a 2D ion chamber array (MapCheck). EPID data was compared to film and MapCheck data using gamma analysis with 3%, 3mm pass criteria. Results: The fraction of points that passed the gamma test was on average 98.1% and 98.6%, for the EPID versus film and EPID versus MapCheck comparisons, respectively. In the case of comparison with film, the majority of observed discrepancies were associated with problems related to film sensitivity or processing. Conclusions: The very close agreement between EPID and both film and MapCheck data demonstrates that the modified EPID is suitable for direct dose to water measurement for pretreatment IMRT verification. These results suggest a reconfigured EPID could be an efficient and accurate dosimeter. Alternatively, optical switching methods could be developed to produce a dual-mode EPID with both dosimetry and imaging capabilities.

Gustafsson, Helen; Vial, Philip; Kuncic, Zdenka; Baldock, Clive; Denham, James W.; Greer, Peter B. [Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006 (Australia) and Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney 2065 (Australia); Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006 (Australia) and Department of Medical Physics, Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres, Sydney 2170 (Australia); Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006 (Australia); School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2308 (Australia) and Radiation Oncology Department, Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, Newcastle 2310 (Australia); School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2308 (Australia) and Radiation Oncology Department, Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, Newcastle 2310 (Australia)

2011-11-15T23:59:59.000Z

68

Effect of direct liquid water injection and interdigitated flow field on the performance of proton exchange membrane fuel cells  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

70-108B One Cyclotron Road Berkeley, California 94720 December 2, 1997 Key Words: Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cells, humidification, gas distribution, direct liquid water injection, interdigitated flow fields. * Corresponding... of the catalyst layers were made of waterproof, carbon fiber cloths. Liquid water was injected by two metering pumps into two heated stainless steel coils, where it was preheated to the cell operating temperatures, and then directly into the gas streams...

Wood, D. L.; Yi, Y. S.; Nguyen, Trung Van

1998-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

69

1992 CBECS Detailed Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Detailed Tables Detailed Tables To download all 1992 detailed tables: Download Acrobat Reader for viewing PDF files. Yellow Arrow Buildings Characteristics Tables (PDF format) (70 tables, 230 pages, file size 1.39 MB) Yellow Arrow Energy Consumption and Expenditures Tables (PDF format) (47 tables, 208 pages, file size 1.28 MB) Yellow Arrow Energy End-Use Tables (PDF format) (6 tables, 6 pages, file size 31.7 KB) Detailed tables for other years: Yellow Arrow 1999 CBECS Yellow Arrow 1995 CBECS Background information on detailed tables: Yellow Arrow Description of Detailed Tables and Categories of Data Yellow Arrow Statistical Significance of Data 1992 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) Detailed Tables Data from the 1992 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) are presented in three groups of detailed tables:

70

FY 2006 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 Comparable Comparable Request to FY 2006 vs. FY 2005 Approp Approp Congress Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply Operation and maintenance................................................. 787,941 909,903 862,499 -47,404 -5.2% Construction......................................................................... 6,956 22,416 40,175 17,759 +79.2% Total, Energy supply................................................................ 794,897 932,319 902,674 -29,645 -3.2% Non-Defense site acceleration completion............................. 167,272 157,316 172,400 15,084 +9.6%

71

FY 2010 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Current Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Recovery Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy....................................... 1,704,112 2,178,540 16,800,000 2,318,602 +140,062 +6.4% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................................ 136,170 137,000 4,500,000 208,008 +71,008 +51.8% Nuclear energy.............................................................................. 960,903 792,000 -- 761,274 -30,726 -3.9% Legacy management..................................................................... 33,872 -- -- --

72

FY 2012 Statistical Table  

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

2Statistical Table by Appropriation 2Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Current Congressional Annualized Congressional Approp. Request CR Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy....................................... 2,216,392 2,355,473 2,242,500 3,200,053 +983,661 +44.4% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................................ 168,484 185,930 171,982 237,717 +69,233 +41.1% Nuclear energy............................................................................. 774,578 824,052 786,637 754,028 -20,550 -2.7% Fossil energy programs Fossil energy research and development................................... 659,770 586,583 672,383 452,975

73

FY 2007 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply and conservation Operation and maintenance............................................ 1,779,399 1,791,372 1,917,331 +125,959 +7.0% Construction................................................................... 22,416 21,255 6,030 -15,225 -71.6% Total, Energy supply and conservation.............................. 1,801,815 1,812,627 1,923,361 +110,734 +6.1% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology..................................................... -160,000 -20,000 -- +20,000 +100.0% Fossil energy research and development.......................

74

FY 2008 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Current Congressional Congressional Approp. Request Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply and conservation Operation and maintenance........................................... 1,781,242 1,917,331 2,187,943 +270,612 +14.1% Construction.................................................................... 31,155 6,030 -- -6,030 -100.0% Total, Energy supply and conservation............................. 1,812,397 1,923,361 2,187,943 +264,582 +13.8% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology.................................................... -20,000 -- -58,000 -58,000 N/A Fossil energy research and development......................

75

Risk Factors for Contamination of Hotel Water Distribution Systems by Legionella Species  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...period. DISCUSSION Our data indicate that at the time...www.ewgli.org/data/data_tables/year_onset...rates were higher than in big towns, where hotels generally...heaters powered directly by electricity and solar water heaters...

Varvara Mouchtouri; Emmanuel Velonakis; Andreas Tsakalof; Christina Kapoula; Georgia Goutziana; Alkiviadis Vatopoulos; Jenny Kremastinou; Christos Hadjichristodoulou

2007-01-19T23:59:59.000Z

76

Table 25  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

89 89 Table 25 Created on: 1/3/2014 3:10:33 PM Table 25. Natural gas home customer-weighted heating degree days, New England Middle Atlantic East North Central West North Central South Atlantic Month/Year/Type of data CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT NJ, NY, PA IL, IN, MI, OH, WI IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD DE, FL, GA, MD, DC, NC, SC, VA, WV November Normal 702 665 758 841 442 2012 751 738 772 748 527 2013 756 730 823 868 511 % Diff (normal to 2013) 7.7 9.8 8.6 3.2 15.6 % Diff (2012 to 2013) 0.7 -1.1 6.6 16.0 -3.0 November to November Normal 702 665 758 841 442 2012 751 738 772 748 527 2013 756 730 823 868 511 % Diff (normal to 2013) 7.7 9.8 8.6 3.2 15.6 % Diff (2012 to 2013) 0.7 -1.1 6.6 16.0 -3.0

77

chapter 5. Detailed Tables  

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

5. Detailed Tables 5. Detailed Tables Chapter 5. Detailed Tables The following tables present detailed characteristics of vehicles in the residential sector. Data are from the 1994 Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey. Table Organization The "Detailed Tables" section consists of three types of tables: (1) Tables of totals such as number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) or gallons consumed; (2) tables of per household statistics such as VMT per household; and (3) tables of per-vehicle statistics, such as vehicle fuel consumption per vehicle. The tables have been grouped together by specific topics such as model-year data or family-income data to facilitate finding related information. The Quick-Reference Guide to the detailed tables indicates major topics of each table.

78

Notices TABLE  

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

7 Federal Register 7 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 160 / Thursday, August 18, 2011 / Notices TABLE 2-NET BURDEN CHANGE-Continued 2011-2012 2012-2013 Change % Change Burden disposition Total Applicants .................................... 23,611,500 24,705,864 +1,094,364 +4.63 Net decrease in burden. The increase in applicants is offset by the results of the Department's simplification changes. This has created an over- all decrease in burden of 8.94% or 2,881,475 hours. Total Applicant Burden ......................... 32,239,328 29,357,853 ¥2,881,475 ¥8.94 Total Annual Responses ....................... 32,239,328 46,447,024 +14,207,696 +44.07 Cost for All Applicants .......................... $159,370.20 $234,804.24 $75,434.04 +47.33 The Department is proud that efforts to simplify the FAFSA submission

79

Table 4  

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

4. Mean Annual Electricity Expenditures for Lighting, by Number of 4. Mean Annual Electricity Expenditures for Lighting, by Number of Household Members by Number of Rooms, 1993 (Dollars) Number of Rooms Number of Household Members All Households One to Three Four Five Six Seven Eight or More RSE Column Factors: 0.5 1.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 RSE Row Factors All Households................................... 83 49 63 76 87 104 124 2.34 One..................................................... 55 44 51 54 69 78 87 5.33 Two..................................................... 80 56 63 77 82 96 107 3.38 Three.................................................. 92 60 73 82 95 97 131 4.75 Four.................................................... 106 64 78 93 96 124 134 4.53 Five or More....................................... 112 70 83 98 99 117 150 5.89 Notes: -- To obtain the RSE percentage for any table cell, multiply the

80

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, October 1991  

SciTech Connect

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

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

1991-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


81

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, August 1991  

SciTech Connect

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

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

1991-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

82

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, September 1991  

SciTech Connect

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

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

1991-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

83

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, November 1991  

SciTech Connect

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

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

1991-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

84

Environmental regulatory update table, July 1991  

SciTech Connect

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

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

1991-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

85

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, November 1990  

SciTech Connect

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

Hawkins, G.T.; Houlberg, L.M.; Noghrei-Nikbakht, P.A.; Salk, M.S.

1990-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

86

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: PREINTERVIEW OBSERVATION  

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: PREINTERVIEW OBSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SECTION B: HOUSING TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SECTION C: HOME HEATING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SECTION D: AIR CONDITIONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 SECTION E: WATER HEATING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 SECTION F: LIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 SECTION G: APPLIANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Cooking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Refrigerators and Freezers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

1995 Detailed Tables  

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

Households, Buildings & Industry > Commercial Buildings Energy Households, Buildings & Industry > Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey > Detailed Tables 1995 Detailed Tables Data from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) are presented in three groups of detailed tables: Buildings Characteristics Tables, number of buildings and amount of floorspace for major building characteristics. Energy Consumption and Expenditures Tables, energy consumption and expenditures for major energy sources. Energy End-Use Data, total, electricity and natural gas consumption and energy intensities for nine specific end-uses. Summary Table—All Principal Buildings Activities (HTML Format) Background information on detailed tables: Description of Detailed Tables and Categories of Data Statistical Significance of Data

88

Analysis of 129I in Groundwater Samples: Direct and Quantitative Results below the Drinking Water Standard  

SciTech Connect

Due to its long half-life (15.7 million years) and relatively unencumbered migration in subsurface environments, 129I has been recognized as a contaminant of concern at numerous federal, private, and international facilities. In order to understand the long-term risk associated with 129I at these locations, quantitative analysis of groundwater samples must be performed. However, the ability to quantitatively assess the 129I content in groundwater samples requires specialized extraction and sophisticated analytical techniques, which are complicated and not always available to the general scientific community. This paper highlights an analytical method capable of directly quantifying 129I in groundwater samples at concentrations below the MCL without the need for sample pre-concentration. Samples were analyzed on a Perkin Elmer ELAN DRC II ICP-MS after minimal dilution using O2 as the reaction gas. Analysis of continuing calibration verification standards indicated that the DRC mode could be used for quantitative analysis of 129I in samples below the drinking water standard (0.0057 ng/ml or 1 pCi/L). The low analytical detection limit of 129I analysis in the DRC mode coupled with minimal sample dilution (1.02x) resulted in a final sample limit of quantification of 0.0051 ng/ml. Subsequent analysis of three groundwater samples containing 129I resulted in fully quantitative results in the DRC mode, and spike recovery analyses performed on all three samples confirmed that the groundwater matrix did not adversely impact the analysis of 129I in the DRC mode. This analytical approach has been proven to be a cost-effective, high-throughput technique for the direct, quantitative analysis of 129I in groundwater samples at concentrations below the current MCL.

Brown, Christopher F.; Geiszler, Keith N.; Lindberg, Michael J.

2007-03-03T23:59:59.000Z

89

Direct and Indirect Water Withdrawals for U.S. Industrial Sectors  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Nevertheless, information necessary to meaningfully assess sustainable water use is incomplete. ... real estate ... Integrated Sustainability Analysis. ...

By Michael Blackhurst; Chris Hendrickson; Jordi Sels i Vidal

2010-02-08T23:59:59.000Z

90

Effect of water concentration in the anode catalyst layer on the performance of direct methanol fuel cells operating  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

significantly increase the methanol-crossover rate, producing an unfavorable * Corresponding author. DepartmentEffect of water concentration in the anode catalyst layer on the performance of direct methanol fuel cells operating with neat methanol Q.X. Wu a , S.Y. Shen a , Y.L. He b , T.S. Zhao a

Zhao, Tianshou

91

To build a photoelectrochemical (PEC) system that produces hydrogen fuel directly from water using sunlight as the energy source.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1 SS H2 O2 metaloxide GoalGoal To build a photoelectrochemical (PEC) system that produces hydrogen fuel directly from water using sunlight as the energy source. Approach: development of a multi provides voltage assist using lower-energy photons catalyst surface optimized for hydrogen evolution UH

92

Directional solvent for membrane-free water desalination-A molecular level study  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Development of desalination technologies has been identified as vital to fulfilling future water demand. In this paper, we use molecular simulation to demonstrate that decanoic acid can dissolve water but reject salt, and ...

Luo, Tengfei

93

Direct Determination of Trace-Level Haloacetic Acids in Drinking Water by Two-1 Dimensional Ion Chromatography with Suppressed Conductivity2  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1 Direct Determination of Trace-Level Haloacetic Acids in Drinking Water by Two-1 Dimensional Ion thetreatment process of drinking water, disinfectants (chlorine, ozone, chlorine dioxide)13 react on water of the nine existing Halo-Acetic Acids (HAA) are commonly found15 in drinking water(Monochloroacetic acid MCAA

Boyer, Edmond

94

Efficient, sustainable production of molecular hydrogen -a promising alternative to batteries in terms of energy storage -is still an unsolved problem. Implementation of direct water splitting  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

in terms of energy storage - is still an unsolved problem. Implementation of direct water splitting usingEfficient, sustainable production of molecular hydrogen - a promising alternative to batteries

Ku?el, Petr

95

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, January/February 1995  

SciTech Connect

The Environmental Regulatory Update Table provides information on regulatory initiatives impacting environmental, health, and safety management responsibilities. the table is updated bi-monthly with information from the Federal Register and other sources, including direct contact with regulatory agencies. Each table entry provides a chronological record of the rulemaking process for that initiative with an abstract and a projection of further action.

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Bock, R.E.; Mayer, S.J.; Salk, M.S.

1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

96

COST AND QUALITY TABLES 95  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 Tables 5 Tables July 1996 Energy Information Administration Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels U.S. Department of Energy Washington DC 20585 This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein should not be construed as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or any other organization. Contacts The annual publication Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Utility Plants (C&Q) will no longer be pub- lished by the EIA. The tables presented in this docu- ment are intended to replace that annual publication. Questions regarding the availability of these data should be directed to: Coal and Electric Data and Renewables Division

97

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for PDF format. Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for PDF format. MS Excel Viewer Spreadsheets are provided in excel Errata - August 25, 2004 1 to117 - Complete set of of Supplemental Tables PDF Table 1. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (New England) XLS PDF Table 2. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Middle Atlantic) XLS PDF Table 3. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East North Central) XLS PDF Table 4. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West North Central) XLS PDF Table 5. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (South Atlantic) XLS PDF Table 6. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East South Central) XLS PDF Table 7. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West South Central) XLS PDF Table 8. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Mountain)

98

1999 CBECS Detailed Tables  

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

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) > Detailed Tables Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) > Detailed Tables 1999 CBECS Detailed Tables Building Characteristics | Consumption & Expenditures Data from the 1999 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) are presented in the Building Characteristics tables, which include number of buildings and total floorspace for various Building Characteristics, and Consumption and Expenditures tables, which include energy usage figures for major energy sources. A table of Relative Standard Errors (RSEs) is included as a worksheet tab in each Excel tables. Complete sets of RSE tables are also available in .pdf format. (What is an RSE?) Preliminary End-Use Consumption Estimates for 1999 | Description of 1999 Detailed Tables and Categories of Data

99

Perspectives on Dam Removal: York Creek Dam and the Water Framework Directive  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

supply, flood control, hydropower, and recreation. However,as changes induced by hydropower, flood control, or waterFERC requires private hydropower dams to provide equal

Lawrence, Justin E; Pollak, Josh D; Richmond, Sarah F

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

100

Supplement Tables - Contact  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Supplement Tables to the AEO99 Supplement Tables to the AEO99 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Annual Energy Outlook 1999 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Assumptions to the AEO99 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) NEMS Conference bullet1.gif (843 bytes) To Forecasting Home Page bullet1.gif (843 bytes) EIA Homepage furtherinfo.gif (5474 bytes) The Annual Energy Outlook 1999 (AEO99) was prepared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, under the direction of Mary J. Hutzler (mhutzler@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222). General questions may be addressed to Arthur T. Andersen (aanderse@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-1441), Director of the International, Economic, and Greenhouse Gas Division; Susan H. Holte (sholte@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-4838), Director of the Demand and Integration Division; James M. Kendell (jkendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director of the Oil and Gas Division; Scott Sitzer (ssitzer@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2308), Director of the Coal and Electric Power Division; or Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Modeling Analyst. Detailed questions about the forecasts and related model components may be addressed to the following analysts:

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


101

Development of directional capabilities to an ultradeep water dynamic kill simulator and simulations runs  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

, the increasing demand of oil and gas is the impetus to search for oil in more difficult and challenging areas. One challenging area is offshore in ultradeep water, with water depths greater than 5000 ft. This is the new arena for drilling technology...

Meier, Hector Ulysses

2005-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

102

Direct photo-etching of poly(methyl methacrylate) using focused extreme ultraviolet radiation from a table-top laser-induced plasma source  

SciTech Connect

In order to perform material interaction studies with intense extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, a Schwarzschild mirror objective coated with Mo/Si multilayers was adapted to a compact laser-based EUV plasma source (pulse energy 3 mJ at {lambda}=13.5 nm, plasma diameter {approx}300 {mu}m). By 10x demagnified imaging of the plasma a pulse energy density of {approx}75 mJ/cm{sup 2} at a pulse length of 6 ns can be achieved in the image plane of the objective. As demonstrated for poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), photoetching of polymer surfaces is possible at this EUV fluence level. This paper presents first results, including a systematic determination of PMMA etching rates under EUV irradiation. Furthermore, the contribution of out-of-band radiation to the surface etching of PMMA was investigated by conducting a diffraction experiment for spectral discrimination from higher wavelength radiation. Imaging of a pinhole positioned behind the plasma accomplished the generation of an EUV spot of 1 {mu}m diameter, which was employed for direct writing of surface structures in PMMA.

Barkusky, Frank; Peth, Christian; Bayer, Armin; Mann, Klaus [Laser-Laboratorium-Goettingen e.V., Hans-Adolf-Krebs-Weg 1, D-37077 Goettingen (Germany)

2007-06-15T23:59:59.000Z

103

Direct photo-etching of poly(methyl methacrylate) using focused extreme ultraviolet radiation from a table-top laser-induced plasma source  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

In order to perform material interaction studies with intense extreme ultraviolet(EUV)radiation a Schwarzschild mirror objective coated with Mo/Si multilayers was adapted to a compact laser-based EUVplasma source (pulse energy 3 ? mJ ? at ? ? = 13.5 ? nm plasma diameter ? 300 ? ? m ). By 10 demagnified imaging of the plasma a pulse energy density of ? 75 ? mJ ? cm 2 at a pulse length of 6 ns can be achieved in the image plane of the objective. As demonstrated for poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) photoetching of polymer surfaces is possible at this EUV fluence level. This paper presents first results including a systematic determination of PMMA etching rates under EUVirradiation. Furthermore the contribution of out-of-band radiation to the surface etching of PMMA was investigated by conducting a diffraction experiment for spectral discrimination from higher wavelength radiation. Imaging of a pinhole positioned behind the plasma accomplished the generation of an EUV spot of 1 ? ? m diameter which was employed for direct writing of surface structures in PMMA.

Frank Barkusky; Christian Peth; Armin Bayer; Klaus Mann

2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

104

Effect-Directed Identification of Naphthenic Acids As Important in Vitro Xeno-Estrogens and Anti-Androgens in North Sea Offshore Produced Water Discharges  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Effect-Directed Identification of Naphthenic Acids As Important in Vitro Xeno-Estrogens and Anti-Androgens in North Sea Offshore Produced Water Discharges ... Produced water from offshore oil production platforms represents the largest direct discharge of effluent into the offshore environment. ... Naphthenic Acids in Coastal Sediments after the Hebei Spirit Oil Spill: A Potential Indicator for Oil Contamination ...

K. V. Thomas; K. Langford; K. Petersen; A. J. Smith; K. E. Tollefsen

2009-09-22T23:59:59.000Z

105

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

December 22, 2000 (Next Release: December, 2001) Related Links Annual Energy Outlook 2001 Assumptions to the AEO2001 NEMS Conference Contacts Forecast Homepage EIA Homepage AEO Supplement Reference Case Forecast (1999-2020) (HTML) Table 1. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (New England) Table 2. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Middle Atlantic) Table 3. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East North Central) Table 4. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West North Central) Table 5. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (South Atlantic) Table 6. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East South Central) Table 7. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West South Central) Table 8. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Mountain)

106

Reservoir Management in Mediterranean Climates through the European Water Framework Directive  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

environmental best management practices through cross compliance in part to address this strain on waterwater management: the case of two Portuguese reservoirs with different water quality. International Journal of Environmental

O'Reilly, Clare; Silberblatt, Rafael

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

107

FY 2005 Statistical Table  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) Table of Contents Summary...................................................................................................... 1 Mandatory Funding....................................................................................... 3 Energy Supply.............................................................................................. 4 Non-Defense site acceleration completion................................................... 6 Uranium enrichment D&D fund.................................................................... 6 Non-Defense environmental services.......................................................... 6 Science.........................................................................................................

108

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2002 (AEO2002) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1999 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2002, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2002 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seven tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2002 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 2000-2002 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current

109

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Homepage Homepage Supplement Tables to the AEO2001 The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2001 (AEO2001) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1999 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2001, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2001 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-five tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2001 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 1999 and 2000 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

110

Introducing River Modelling in the Implementation of the DPSIR Scheme of the Water Framework Directive  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Engineering, University of Florence Via S. Marta, 3 - 50139 Florence, ITALY Email:marsili@ingfi1.ing, integrates the QUAL2E water quality model for the generation of quality data to assess differing DPSIR, whereby current quality data can be used to generate quality scenarios and apply the DPSIR model

111

Low Crossover of Methanol and Water Through Thin Membranes in Direct Methanol Fuel Cells  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

in the literature has been focused on developing new electrocatalysts to improve sluggish methanol oxidation and new developed in this work to attain low methanol crossover, low water crossover, and high cell performance diffusion barrier to reduce methanol crossover. In addition, a highly hydrophobic cathode microporous layer

112

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (AEO2000) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1998 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2000, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2000 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-six tables are presented. AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (AEO2000) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1998 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2000, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2000 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-six tables are presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO200 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 1998, and 2000 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, Fourth Quarter 1999 or Short Term Energy Outlook, First Quarter 2000, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

113

Direct Water Splitting under Visible Light with a Nanostructured Photoanode and GaInP2 Photocathode  

SciTech Connect

Thin films of hematite nanorod and GaInP2 were used for direct water splitting under visible light. In open circuit conditions, the potential of hematite shifted cathodically and that of GaInP2 anodically, which generated an open circuit voltage between the two electrodes. In short circuit condition, the combination of the two photoelectrodes can split water under visible light illumination, though with a very low current of {micro}A/cm2 level even at 1 W/cm2 light. By means of chopped light, we found that hematite nanorod has a low photocurrent, which is responsible for the low short circuit current of the 2-electrode combination. The low photoresponse of hematite nanorods is due to the recombination of photo- generated charges, low holes mobility, and short diffusion length.

Wang, H.; Deutsch, T.; Turner, J.

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

114

FY 2005 Laboratory Table  

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

Congressional Budget Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 Laboratory Tables Preliminary Department of Energy Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Preliminary Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropria ted as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress.

115

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 EIA Glossary Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 Release date: February 2005 Next release date: February 2006 The AEO Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 2003 to 2025. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2005, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2005 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seventeen tables is presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2005 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Forecasts for 2003-2005 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term forecasts and are based on more current information than the AEO.

116

Precision Flow Table | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Table Table Jump to: navigation, search Basic Specifications Facility Name Flow Table Overseeing Organization United States Army Corp of Engineers (ERDC) Hydrodynamic Testing Facility Type Flow Table Length(m) 2.4 Beam(m) 1.2 Water Type Freshwater Cost(per day) Contact POC Towing Capabilities Towing Capabilities None Wavemaking Capabilities Wavemaking Capabilities None Channel/Tunnel/Flume Channel/Tunnel/Flume Yes Wind Capabilities Wind Capabilities None Control and Data Acquisition Description Automated data acquisition and control system Cameras None Available Sensors Flow, Pressure Range(psi), Turbulence, Velocity, Wave Probe Data Generation Capability Real-Time No Test Services Test Services Yes Past Pertinent Test Experience Users are District Engineers, Planners, and Engineering Consultants

117

Influence of Atmospheric Pressure and Water Table Fluctuations on Gas Phase Flow and Transport of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Unsaturated Zones  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

in previous studies. This dissertation systematically investigates their influence on the gas phase flow and transport of VOCs in soil and ground water remediation processes using analytically and numerically mathematical modeling. New semi...

You, Kehua

2013-04-19T23:59:59.000Z

118

Louisiana Block Grant Tables | Department of Energy  

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

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

119

Mississippi Block Grant Tables | Department of Energy  

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

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

120

2003 CBECS RSE Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003rsetables_files/plainlink.css" cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003rsetables_files/plainlink.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet> Home > Households, Buildings & Industry > Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) > 2003 Detailed Tables > RSE Tables 2003 CBECS Relative Standard Error (RSE) Tables Released: Dec 2006 Next CBECS will be conducted in 2007 Standard error is a measure of the reliability or precision of the survey statistic. The value for the standard error can be used to construct confidence intervals and to perform hypothesis tests by standard statistical methods. Relative Standard Error (RSE) is defined as the standard error (square root of the variance) of a survey estimate, divided by the survey estimate and multiplied by 100. (More information on RSEs)

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


121

Environmental sciences division: Environmental regulatory update table July 1988  

SciTech Connect

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

Langston, M.E.; Nikbakht, A.; Salk, M.S.

1988-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

122

Environmental regulatory update table, July/August 1994  

SciTech Connect

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

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Bock, R.E.; Salk, M.S.

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

123

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, November--December 1993  

SciTech Connect

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

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Salk, M.S.; Danford, G.S.; Lewis, E.B.

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

124

Environmental Regulatory Update Table, May--June 1994  

SciTech Connect

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

Houlberg, L.M.; Hawkins, G.T.; Bock, R.E.; Salk, M.S.

1994-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

125

Economic Analysis on Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in CANDU Reactors - I: DUPIC Fuel Fabrication Cost  

SciTech Connect

A preliminary conceptual design of a Direct Use of spent Pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel In Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactors (DUPIC) fuel fabrication plant was studied, which annually converts spent PWR fuel of 400 tonnes heavy element (HE) into CANDU fuel. The capital and operating costs were estimated from the viewpoint of conceptual design. Assuming that the annual discount rate is 5% during the construction (5 yr) and operation period (40 yr) and contingency is 25% of the capital cost, the levelized unit cost (LUC) of DUPIC fuel fabrication was estimated to be 616 $/kg HE, which is mostly governed by annual operation and maintenance costs that correspond to 63% of LUC. Among the operation and maintenance cost components being considered, the waste disposal cost has the dominant effect on LUC ({approx}49%). From sensitivity analyses of production capacity, discount rate, and contingency, it was found that the production capacity of the plant is the major parameter that affects the LUC.

Choi, Hangbok; Ko, Won Il; Yang, Myung Seung [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (Korea, Republic of)

2001-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

126

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Buildings Use Tables Buildings Use Tables (24 pages, 129 kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 12. Employment Size Category, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 13. Employment Size Category, Floorspace, 1995 Table 14. Weekly Operating Hours, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 15. Weekly Operating Hours, Floorspace, 1995 Table 16. Occupancy of Nongovernment-Owned and Government-Owned Buildings, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 17. Occupancy of Nongovernment-Owned and Government-Owned Buildings, Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the

127

ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

#12;ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents An Unusually Heavy Snowfall in North Central Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A Brief History of Colorado's Most Notable Snowstorms" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Colorado Climate Water Year 2003 Vol. 4, No. 1-4 If you have a photo or slide that your would like

128

ARM - Instrument Location Table  

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

govInstrumentsLocation Table govInstrumentsLocation Table Instruments Location Table Contacts Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Instrument Locations Site abbreviations explained in the key. Instrument Name Abbreviation NSA SGP TWP AMF C1 C2 EF BF CF EF IF C1 C2 C3 EF IF Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor ACSM Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer AERI Aethalometer AETH Ameriflux Measurement Component AMC Aerosol Observing System AOS Meteorological Measurements associated with the Aerosol Observing System AOSMET Broadband Radiometer Station BRS

129

FY 2009 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Preliminary February 2008 Office of Chief Financial Officer Department of Energy FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request State Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper State Index Page Number FY 2009 Congressional Budget 1/30/2008 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 9:01:45AM Page 1 of 2 FY 2007 Appropriation FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009 Request State Table 1 1 $27,588

130

FY 2005 State Table  

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

Office of Management, Budget Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 State Tables State Tables Preliminary Preliminary Department of Energy Department of Energy FY 2005 Congressional Budget FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2004 State Tables State Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Preliminary Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. State Index Page Number

131

FY 2010 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Preliminary May 2009 Office of Chief Financial Officer FY 2010 Congressional Budget Request State Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper State Index Page Number FY 2010 Congressional Budget 5/4/2009 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 2:13:22PM Page 1 of 2 FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009 Appropriation FY 2010 Request State Table 1 1 $46,946 $48,781 $38,844 Alabama 2 $6,569

132

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook 1999 Annual Energy Outlook 1999 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Assumptions to the AEO99 bullet1.gif (843 bytes) NEMS Conference bullet1.gif (843 bytes) Contacts bullet1.gif (843 bytes) To Forecasting Home Page bullet1.gif (843 bytes) EIA Homepage supplemental.gif (7420 bytes) (Errata as of 9/13/99) The AEO Supplementary tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 1999 (AEO99) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 1997 to 2020. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO99, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO99 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of ninety-five tables are presented.

133

FY 2006 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2005 State Tables Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. State Index Page Number FY 2006 Congressional Budget 1/27/2005 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 3:32:58PM Page 1 of 2 FY 2004 Comp/Approp FY 2005 Comp/Approp FY 2006 Request State Table

134

FY 2010 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Preliminary May 2009 Office of Chief Financial Officer FY 2010 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2010 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 2:08:56PM Department Of Energy 5/4/2009 Page Number FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009 Appropriation FY 2010 Request Laboratory Table 1 1 $1,200

135

Table of Contents  

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

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

136

FY 2008 State Table  

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

State Table State Table Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request February 2007 Office of Chief Financial Officer State Table Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. State Index Page Number FY 2008 Congressional Budget 2/1/2007 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 6:53:08AM Page 1 of 2 FY 2006 Appropriation FY 2007 Request FY 2008 Request State Table 1 1 $28,332 $30,341

137

Description of 2003 CBECS Detailed Tables and Categories of Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

floorspace heated, cooled, and lit, and energy-using equipment types (heating, cooling, water heating, lighting, and refrigeration). Tables C1-C12 and C1A-C12A contain energy usage...

138

FY 2013 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Summary Control Table by Appropriation Summary Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Current Enacted Congressional Approp. Approp. * Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy......................................... 1,771,721 1,809,638 2,337,000 +527,362 +29.1% Electricity delivery and energy reliability.......................................... 138,170 139,103 143,015 +3,912 +2.8% Nuclear energy................................................................................ 717,817 765,391 770,445 +5,054 +0.7% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology..................................................................

139

FY 2009 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Control Table by Appropriation Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Current Current Congressional Op. Plan Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy.......................... -- 1,722,407 1,255,393 -467,014 -27.1% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................... -- 138,556 134,000 -4,556 -3.3% Nuclear energy.................................................................. -- 961,665 853,644 -108,021 -11.2% Legacy management........................................................ -- 33,872 -- -33,872 -100.0% Energy supply and Conservation...................................... 2,145,149 -- -- -- -- Fossil energy programs

140

Deemed Savings Estimates for Legacy Air Conditioning and WaterHeating Direct Load Control Programs in PJM Region  

SciTech Connect

During 2005 and 2006, the PJM Interconnection (PJM) Load Analysis Subcommittee (LAS) examined ways to reduce the costs and improve the effectiveness of its existing measurement and verification (M&V) protocols for Direct Load Control (DLC) programs. The current M&V protocol requires that a PURPA-compliant Load Research study be conducted every five years for each Load-Serving Entity (LSE). The current M&V protocol is expensive to implement and administer particularly for mature load control programs, some of which are marginally cost-effective. There was growing evidence that some LSEs were mothballing or dropping their DLC programs in lieu of incurring the expense associated with the M&V. This project had several objectives: (1) examine the potential for developing deemed savings estimates acceptable to PJM for legacy air conditioning and water heating DLC programs, and (2) explore the development of a collaborative, regional, consensus-based approach for conducting monitoring and verification of load reductions for emerging load management technologies for customers that do not have interval metering capability.

Goldman, Charles

2007-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

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


141

FY 2011 State Table  

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

State Tables State Tables Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0054 March 2010 Office of Chief Financial Officer State Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0054 State Index Page Number FY 2011 Congressional Budget 1/29/2010 Department Of Energy (Dollars In Thousands) 6:34:40AM Page 1 of 2 FY 2009 Appropriation

142

FY 2007 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory tables Laboratory tables preliminary Department of Energy FY 2007 Congressional Budget Request February 2006 Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Office of Chief Financial Officer Laboratory tables preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2007 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 12:10:40PM Department Of Energy 1/31/2006 Page Number FY 2005 Appropriation FY 2006 Appropriation FY 2007

143

FY 2011 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0055 March 2010 Office of Chief Financial Officer Laboratory Tables Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request DOE/CF-0055 Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2011 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 6:24:57AM Department Of Energy 1/29/2010 Page

144

FY 2008 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Table Laboratory Table Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request February 2007 Office of Chief Financial Officer Laboratory Table Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2008 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 6:51:02AM Department Of Energy 2/1/2007 Page Number FY 2006 Appropriation FY 2007 Request FY 2008 Request

145

FY 2006 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Preliminary Department of Energy FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/CFO February 2005 Laboratory Tables Preliminary Printed with soy ink on recycled paper The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, uses of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2006 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 3:43:16PM Department Of Energy 1/27/2005 Page Number FY 2004 Comp/Approp FY 2005 Comp/Approp

146

Fy 2009 Laboratory Table  

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

Laboratory Tables Laboratory Tables Preliminary February 2008 Office of Chief Financial Officer Department of Energy FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2009 Congressional Budget Page 1 of 3 (Dollars In Thousands) 8:59:25AM Department Of Energy 1/30/2008 Page Number FY 2007 Appropriation FY 2008 Appropriation FY 2009

147

Table of Contents Page i Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

148

Development of Procedures for Direct Extraction of Cryptosporidium DNA from Water Concentrates and for Relief of PCR Inhibitors  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...wastewater or storm water samples. We also...several secondary DNA purification treatments and PCR...Protozoan 7732-18-5 Water | Animals Cryptosporidium...genetics isolation & purification DNA, Protozoan...genetics isolation & purification Parasitology methods...Reaction methods Water parasitology

Jianlin Jiang; Kerri A. Alderisio; Ajaib Singh; Lihua Xiao

2005-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

149

Cost Recovery Charge (CRC) Calculation Tables  

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

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

150

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

/2011 /2011 Decades of Discovery Decades of Discovery Page 2 6/1/2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 6 2 BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES .................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Adenosine Triphosphate: The Energy Currency of Life .............................................. 7 2.2 Making Better Catalysts .............................................................................................. 8 2.3 Understanding Chemical Reactions............................................................................ 9 2.4 New Types of Superconductors ................................................................................ 10

151

Measurement of Petroleum Fuel Contamination in Water by Solid-Phase Microextraction with Direct Raman Spectroscopic Detection  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A method is described for determining petroleum fuel contamination in water based on solid-phase microextraction and Raman spectroscopy (SPME/Raman). In this method, contaminants are...

Jager, Michael J; McClintic, Daniel P; Tilotta, David C

2000-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

152

Overwintering behavior and movement of immature green sea turtles in south Texas waters  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

OF APPENDIX TABLES LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES INTRODUCTION STUDY AREA METHODS Turtle Capture Tagging Activities Tracking Protocol Data Collection Environmental Monitoring Data Analysis Turtle Identification RESULTS Habitat Characterization... and active. Resting was defined as remaining in the same location with very little directed movement and active behavior as progressive movements throughout the water column and surrounding habitat. Environmental Monitoring Surface and boiiom (depth...

Arms, Stacie Ann

2012-06-07T23:59:59.000Z

153

FY 2013 Laboratory Table  

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

8 8 Department of Energy FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables y Preliminary February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer DOE/CF-0078 Department of Energy FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables P li i Preliminary h b d i d i hi d h l l f b d h i f h The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2013 Congressional Budget

154

FY 2012 State Table  

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

6 6 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request State Tables P li i Preliminary February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer DOE/CF-0066 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request State Tables P li i Preliminary The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer Printed with soy ink on recycled

155

FY 2012 Laboratory Table  

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

5 5 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables y Preliminary February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer DOE/CF-0065 Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget Request Laboratory Tables P li i Preliminary h b d i d i hi d h l l f b d h i f h The numbers depicted in this document represent the gross level of DOE budget authority for the years displayed. The figures include both the discretionary and mandatory funding in the budget. They do not consider revenues/receipts, use of prior year balances, deferrals, rescissions, or other adjustments appropriated as offsets to the DOE appropriations by the Congress. February 2012 Office of Chief Financial Officer Printed with soy ink on recycled paper Laboratory / Facility Index FY 2012 Congressional Budget

156

Table of Contents  

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

COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS OF SMART GRID TECHNOLOGIES October 5, 2010 i Table of Contents I. Introduction and Executive Summary.......................................................... 1 a. Overview of Smart Grid Benefits and Communications Needs................. 2 b. Summary of Recommendations .................................................................... 5 II. Federal Government Smart Grid Initiatives ................................................ 7 a. DOE Request for Information ....................................................................... 7 b. Other Federal Government Smart Grid Initiatives .................................... 9 III. Communications Requirements of Smart Grid Applications .................. 11 a. Advanced Metering Infrastructure ............................................................12

157

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Geographic Location Tables Geographic Location Tables (24 pages, 136kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 3. Census Region, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 4. Census Region and Division, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 5. Census Region and Division, Floorspace, 1995 Table 6. Climate Zone, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 7. Metropolitan Status, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the United States. The 1995 CBECS was the sixth survey in a series begun in 1979. The data were collected from a sample of 6,639 buildings representing 4.6 million commercial buildings

158

The effect of ethanol-water fumigation on the performance and emissions from a direct-injection diesel engine.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

??The effect of ethanol fumigation and water injection on the performance and exhaust emissions from a 1.9-liter Volkswagen TDI diesel engine was investigated. The engine (more)

Olson, Andr Louis

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

159

Effect of stratified water injection on exhaust gases and fuel consumption of a direct injection diesel engine  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The direct injection Diesel engine with its specific fuel consumption of about 200 g/kWh is one of the most efficient thermal engines. However in case of relatively low CH...x...concentration in the exhaust gas t...

Rainer Pauls; Christof Simon

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

160

Lead levels in the water of suburban Glasgow  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

... per ml RBC per min (Units). Blood and water lead levels were measured by flameless atomic absorption spectrophotometry (Table 1).

GAIL ADDIS; MICHAEL R. MOORE

1974-11-08T23:59:59.000Z

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


161

Table of Contents  

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

NT0005638 NT0005638 Cruise Report 1-19 July 2009 HYFLUX Sea Truth Cruise Northern Gulf of Mexico Submitted by: Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Dr. Corpus Christi, TX 78412 Principal Authors: Ian R. MacDonald and Thomas Naehr Prepared for: United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory October 30, 2009 Office of Fossil Energy HYFLUX Seatruth Cruise Report -1- Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi Table of Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................. 2 Participating Organizations ................................................................................................. 3 Major Equipment ................................................................................................................ 4

162

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Table 2. Total Energy Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 5. Total Coal Consumption, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 6. Total Electricity Sales, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 7. Crude Oil Production, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 8. Natural Gas Production, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 9. Coal Production, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 12. Net Coal Exports, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 13. World Oil Prices, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 14. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices, Actual vs. Forecasts Table 15. Coal Prices to Electric Utilities, Actual vs. Forecasts

163

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Analysis Papers > Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Analysis Papers > Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Download Adobe Acrobat Reader Printer friendly version on our site are provided in Adobe Acrobat Spreadsheets are provided in Excel Actual vs. Forecasts Formats Table 2. Total Energy Consumption Excel, PDF Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption Excel, PDF Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption Excel, PDF Table 5. Total Coal Consumption Excel, PDF Table 6. Total Electricity Sales Excel, PDF Table 7. Crude Oil Production Excel, PDF Table 8. Natural Gas Production Excel, PDF Table 9. Coal Production Excel, PDF Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports Excel, PDF Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports Excel, PDF Table 12. World Oil Prices Excel, PDF Table 13. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices

164

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Conservation Tables Conservation Tables (16 pages, 86 kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 41. Energy Conservation Features, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 Table 42. Building Shell Conservation Features, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 43. Building Shell Conservation Features, Floorspace, 1995 Table 44. Reduction in Equipment Use During Off Hours, Number of Buildings and Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the United States. The 1995 CBECS was the sixth survey in a series begun in 1979. The data were collected from a sample of 6,639 buildings representing 4.6 million commercial buildings

165

CBECS Buildings Characteristics --Revised Tables  

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

Structure Tables Structure Tables (16 pages, 93 kb) CONTENTS PAGES Table 8. Building Size, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 9. Building Size, Floorspace, 1995 Table 10. Year Constructed, Number of Buildings, 1995 Table 11. Year Constructed, Floorspace, 1995 These data are from the 1995 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), a national probability sample survey of commercial buildings sponsored by the Energy Information Administration, that provides information on the use of energy in commercial buildings in the United States. The 1995 CBECS was the sixth survey in a series begun in 1979. The data were collected from a sample of 6,639 buildings representing 4.6 million commercial buildings and 58.8 billion square feet of commercial floorspace in the U.S. The 1995 data are available for the four Census

166

FY 2010 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Control Table by Appropriation Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 Current Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Recovery Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy.......................................... 1,704,112 2,178,540 16,800,000 2,318,602 +140,062 +6.4% Electricity delivery and energy reliability............................................ 136,170 137,000 4,500,000 208,008 +71,008 +51.8% Nuclear energy................................................................................... 960,903 792,000 -- 761,274 -30,726 -3.9% Legacy management.......................................................................... 33,872 -- -- --

167

FY 2011 Statistical Table by Appropriation  

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

Statistical Table by Appropriation Statistical Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Current Current Current Congressional Approp. Recovery Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy........................................... 2,156,865 16,771,907 2,242,500 2,355,473 +112,973 +5.0% Electricity delivery and energy reliability............................................. 134,629 4,495,712 171,982 185,930 +13,948 +8.1% Nuclear energy................................................................................... 791,444 0 786,637 824,052 +37,415 +4.8% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology..................................................................... 0 0 0 0

168

FY 2011 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Summary Control Table by Appropriation Summary Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Current Current Current Congressional Approp. Recovery Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy........................................... 2,156,865 16,771,907 2,242,500 2,355,473 +112,973 +5.0% Electricity delivery and energy reliability............................................. 134,629 4,495,712 171,982 185,930 +13,948 +8.1% Nuclear energy................................................................................... 791,444 0 786,637 824,052 +37,415 +4.8% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology..................................................................... 0 0 0 0

169

FY 2008 Control Table by Appriopriation  

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

Control Table by Appropriation Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Current Congressional Congressional Approp. Request Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply and Conservation..................................... 1,812,397 1,923,361 2,187,943 +264,582 +13.8% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology................................................... -20,000 -- -58,000 -58,000 N/A Fossil energy research and development..................... 580,669 469,686 566,801 +97,115 +20.7% Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves........................ 21,285 18,810 17,301 -1,509 -8.0% Elk Hills school lands fund............................................

170

FY 2007 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Control Table by Appropriation Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy supply and Conservation......................................... 1,801,815 1,812,627 1,923,361 +110,734 +6.1% Fossil energy programs Clean coal technology....................................................... -160,000 -20,000 -- +20,000 +100.0% Fossil energy research and development........................ 560,852 592,014 469,686 -122,328 -20.7% Naval petroleum and oil shale reserves........................... 17,750 21,285 18,810 -2,475 -11.6% Elk Hills school lands fund................................................

171

CARINA Data Table  

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

Cruise Summary Table and Data Cruise Summary Table and Data Users are requested to report any data or metadata errors in the CARINA cruise files to CDIAC. Parameter units in all CARINA data files are in CCHDO exchange format. No Cruise Namea (Alias) Areab Number of Stations Datec Ship Chief Scientist Carbon PI Oxygen Nutrients TCO2d TALK pCO2e pHf CFC Other Measurements Data Files 1 06AQ19920929g (06ANTX_6) (See map) 2 118 9/29-11/30/1992 Polarstern V. Smetacek M. Stoll, J. Rommets, H. De Baar, D. Bakker 62 114h 53 54i U C 0 Choloroa,b Fluorescence, NH4 Data Files (Metadata) 2 06AQ19930806 (06ARKIX_4) (See map) 4 64 8/6-10/5/1993 Polarstern D.K. Fütterer L. Anderson 64 63 63j, bb 0 0 0 59he 3H, 3He, 18O, 14C, 85Kr, Bak Data Files

172

Appendix B: Summary Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Analysis of Impacts of a Clean Energy Standard as requested by Chairman Bingaman U.S. Energy Information Administration | Analysis of Impacts of a Clean Energy Standard as requested by Chairman Bingaman Appendix B: Summary Tables Table B1. The BCES and alternative cases compared to the Reference case, 2025 2009 2025 Ref Ref BCES All Clean Partial Credit Revised Baseline Small Utilities Credit Cap 2.1 Credit Cap 3.0 Stnds + Cds Generation (billion kilowatthours) Coal 1,772 2,049 1,431 1,305 1,387 1,180 1,767 1,714 1,571 1,358 Petroleum 41 45 43 44 44 44 45 45 45 43 Natural Gas 931 1,002 1,341 1,342 1,269 1,486 1,164 1,193 1,243 1,314 Nuclear 799 871 859 906 942 889 878 857 843 826 Conventional Hydropower 274 306 322 319 300 321 316 298 312 322 Geothermal 15 25 28 25 31 24 27 22 23 24 Municipal Waste 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Wood and Other Biomass 38 162 303 289 295 301 241 266

173

Hydrocarbon accumulation conditions and exploration direction of Baiyun-Liwan deep water areas in the Pearl River Mouth Basin  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract An integrated geologic study was performed in the Baiyun-Liwan deep water areas, Pearl River Mouth Basin, based on the achievements obtained during the past five exploration stages. The following understandings were obtained. (1) The Baiyun Sag has superior source rock conditions and has experienced three tectonic evaluation stages like rifting, rifting-depression and depression. The Wenchang-Enping Fms deposited during the rifting stage have large hydrocarbon generation potentials. During the rifting-depression and depression stages, the deposition in the study area was controlled by the Oligocene and Miocene shelf slope break zones. The Oligocene Zhuhai Fm shallow marine delta-longshore depositional system and the Miocene Zhujiang-Hanjiang Fms deep fan depositional system were formed, and they are the most favorable reservoir-caprock assemblages in the study area. (2) The Hydrocarbon accumulation pattern in the deep waters is different from that in the northern shallow waters. Shelf slope break zone, composite conduction system consisting of structural ridge, fault, sandbody, unconformity and fluid diapir as well as late tectonic movement are the three major factors controlling hydrocarbon migration and accumulation in the study area. (3) The Liwan 3-1 gas field is a typical example. The superior trapping conditions, high-quality reservoirs of delta distributary channel controlled by shelf slope break zone, vertical conduction system consisting of fault and diapir, as well as the overlying massive marine mudstone caprock provide favorable geologic conditions for the formation of large gas fields. Four areas were identified as the targets of gas exploration in the near future: the deep water fan system in the central sag, the structural-stratigraphic traps in the uplifted areas on both sides of the main sag of Baiyun, a series of large structural traps on the fault terrace to the southwest of the main sag, and the ultradeep frontiers in sags such as Liwan to the south of the main sag.

Lin Heming; Shi Hesheng

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

174

Table of Contents  

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

(AVL). The ability to track and direct vehicles in the field to locations needing repair is a critical need, but one which does not necessarily require next generation...

175

CBECS 1992 - Consumption & Expenditures, Detailed Tables  

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

Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Detailed Tables Figure on Energy Consumption in Commercial Buildings by Energy Source, 1992 Divider Line The 49 tables present detailed energy consumption and expenditure data for buildings in the commercial sector. This section provides assistance in reading the tables by explaining some of the headings for the data categories. It will also explain the use of row and column factors to compute both the confidence levels of the estimates given in the tables and the statistical significance of differences between the data in two or more categories. The section concludes with a "Quick-Reference Guide" to the statistics in the different tables. Categories of Data in the Tables After Table 3.1, which is a summary table, the tables are grouped into the major fuel tables (Tables 3.2 through 3.13) and the specific fuel tables (Tables 3.14 through 3.29 for electricity, Tables 3.30 through 3.40 for natural gas, Tables 3.41 through 3.45 for fuel oil, and Tables 3.46 through 3.47 for district heat). Table 3.48 presents energy management and DSM data as reported by the building respondent. Table 3.49 presents data on participation in electric utility-sponsored DSM programs as reported by both the building respondent and the electricity supplier.

176

Direct Water Splitting under Visible Light with Nanostructured Hematite and WO3 Photoanodes and a GaInP2 Photocathode  

SciTech Connect

A p-GaInP{sub 2} photocathode was paired with nanostructured hematite and tungsten trioxide photoanodes to investigate the utility of these systems for direct water splitting under visible light illumination. For the hematite system, under illumination at open-circuit conditions, the potential of hematite shifts cathodically and that of the GaInP{sub 2} shifts anodically. Under short-circuit condition and visible light illumination, the combination of the two photoelectrodes can split water, though with a very low rate of a few {micro}A/cm{sup 2} even at an intensity of 1 W/cm{sup 2}. It was determined that the very low photocurrent from the hematite nanorod photoelectrode limits the short-circuit current of the two-photoelectrode combination. Similar potential shifts were observed with the nanostructured WO{sub 3}/GaInP{sub 2} combination. However, at light intensities below 0.2 W/cm{sup 2}, the short-circuited combination would not split water due to an insufficient potential difference. Above 0.2 W/cm{sup 2}, the combination can split water under visible light, with {approx}20 {micro}A/cm{sup 2} obtained at 1 W/cm{sup 2}. A linear photocurrent-light intensity relationship was observed and was attributed to efficient charge transfer and a low recombination of the charge carriers. The bandgap and the associated absorption limit of WO{sub 3} remain a challenge for a higher efficiency system.

Wang, H.; Deutsch, T.; Turner, J. A.

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

177

Microsoft Word - table_87  

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

5 5 Table 6. Natural gas processed, liquids extracted, and natural gas plant liquids production, by state, 2012 Alabama 87,269 5,309 7,110 Alabama Onshore Alabama 33,921 2,614 3,132 Alabama Offshore Alabama 53,348 2,695 3,978 Alaska 2,788,997 18,339 21,470 Alaska 2,788,997 18,339 21,470 Arkansas 6,872 336 424 Arkansas 6,872 336 424 California 169,203 9,923 12,755 California Onshore California 169,203 9,923 12,755 California Offshore California NA NA NA Federal Offshore California NA NA NA

178

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Summary 1. Technical Progress 3 2. Cost Reporting 5 B. Detailed Reports 1.1 Magnets & Supports 8 1.2 Vacuum System 12 1.3 Power Supplies 14 1.4 RF System 16 1.5 Instrumentation & Controls 17 1.6 Cable Plant 18 1.7 Beam Line Front Ends 19 1.8 Facilities 19 1.9 Installation 20 2.1 Accelerator Physics 21 2 A. SPEAR 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Technical Progress The progress and highlights of each major technical system are summarized below. Additional details are provided in Section B. Magnets - As of the end of this quarter (March 31, 2002), the status of magnet fabrication is as follows: Magnet Type Number Received % of Total Received Dipoles 40 100% Quadrupoles 102 100% Sextupoles 76 100%

179

Reviews, Tables, and Plots  

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

4 Review of Particle Physics 4 Review of Particle Physics Please use this CITATION: S. Eidelman et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004) (bibtex) Standalone figures are now available for these reviews. Categories: * Constants, Units, Atomic and Nuclear Properties * Standard Model and Related Topics * Particle Properties * Hypothetical Particles * Astrophysics and Cosmology * Experimental Methods and Colliders * Mathematical Tools * Kinematics, Cross-Section Formulae, and Plots * Authors, Introductory Text, History plots PostScript help file PDF help file Constants, Units, Atomic and Nuclear Properties Physical constants (Rev.) PS PDF (1 page) Astrophysical constants (Rev.) PS PDF (2 pages) International System of units (SI) PS PDF (2 pages) Periodic table of the elements (Rev.) errata PS PDF (1 page)

180

Table G3  

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

1905-0194 1905-0194 Expiration Date: 07/31/2013 May 28, 2010 Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 14 Table G3. Decision Chart for a Start Year Report for a Large Emitter Intending To Register Reductions Report Characteristics Reporting Requirements Schedule I Schedule II (For Each Subentity) Schedule III Schedule IV Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 3 Sec. 4 Sec. 1 Sec. 2 & Add. A Sec. 3 Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Sec. 1 Sec. 2 Part A Part B Part C Part D Part E Part A Part B Part C Independent Verification? All A- or B-Rated Methods? Foreign Emissions? Entity-Wide Reductions Only? Entity Statement Aggregated Emissions by Gas (Domestic and Foreign) † Emissions Inventory by Source

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


181

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

through June 2001 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Summary 1. Technical Progress 3 2. Cost Reporting 4 B. Detailed Reports 1.1 Magnets & Supports 9 1.2 Vacuum System 16 1.3 Power Supplies 21 1.4 RF System 25 1.5 Instrumentation & Controls 26 1.6 Cable Plant 28 1.8 Facilities 28 2.0 Accelerator Physics 29 2.1 ES&H 31 3 A. SPEAR 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Technical Progress Magnet System - The project has received three shipments of magnets from IHEP. A total of 55 dipole, quadrupole and sextupole magnets out of 218 have arrived. All main magnets will arrive by December. The additional mechanical and electrical checks of the magnets at SSRL have been successful. Only minor mechanical problems were found and corrected. The prototype

182

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

AC05-00OR22800 AC05-00OR22800 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page # TOC - i SECTION A - SOLICITATION/OFFER AND AWARD ......................................................................... A-i SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS ........................................................ B-i B.1 SERVICES BEING ACQUIRED ....................................................................................B-2 B.2 TRANSITION COST, ESTIMATED COST, MAXIMUM AVAILABLE FEE, AND AVAILABLE FEE (Modification 295, 290, 284, 280, 270, 257, 239, 238, 219, M201, M180, M162, M153, M150, M141, M132, M103, M092, M080, M055, M051, M049, M034, M022, M003, A002) ..........................................................B-2 SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATION/WORK STATEMENT DESCRIPTION OF

183

Table of Contents  

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

U U U . . S S . . D D E E P P A A R R T T M M E E N N T T O O F F E E N N E E R R G G Y Y O O F F F F I I C C E E O O F F I I N N S S P P E E C C T T O O R R G G E E N N E E R R A A L L Semiannual Report toCongress DOE/IG-0065 April 1 - September 30, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS From the Desk of the Inspector General ..................................................... 2 Impacts Key Accomplishments ............................................................................................... 3 Positive Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 3 Reports Investigative Outcomes .............................................................................................. 6 Audits ......................................................................................................................... 8

184

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

October October through December 2001 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Summary 1. Technical Progress 3 2. Cost Reporting 4 B. Detailed Reports 1.1 Magnets & Supports 7 1.2 Vacuum System 9 1.3 Power Supplies 13 1.4 RF System 16 1.5 Instrumentation & Controls 17 1.6 Cable Plant 18 1.9 Installation 19 2.0 Accelerator Physics 20 3 A. SPEAR 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Technical Progress In the magnet area, the production of all major components (dipoles, quadrupoles, and sextupoles) has been completed on schedule. This results from a highly successful collaboration with our colleagues at the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) in Beijing. The production of corrector magnets is still in progress with completion scheduled for May 2002.

185

2003 CBECS Detailed Tables: Summary  

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

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

186

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

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

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

187

FY 2014 Budget Request Summary Table | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

188

ARM - Instrument - s-table  

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

govInstrumentss-table govInstrumentss-table Documentation S-TABLE : Instrument Mentor Monthly Summary (IMMS) reports S-TABLE : Data Quality Assessment (DQA) reports ARM Data Discovery Browse Data Comments? We would love to hear from you! Send us a note below or call us at 1-888-ARM-DATA. Send Instrument : Stabilized Platform (S-TABLE) Instrument Categories Ocean Observations For ship-based deployments, some instruments require actively stabilized platforms to compensate for the ship's motion, especially rotations around the long axis of the ship (roll), short axis (pitch), and, for some instruments, vertical axis (yaw). ARM currently employs two types of stabilized platforms: one electrically controlled for lighter instruments that includes yaw control (dubbed RPY for Roll, Pitch, Yaw) and one

189

Graphene from Sugar and its Application in Water Purification  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Graphene from Sugar and its Application in Water Purification ... A table presents test results on the purified water and design criteria are discussed. ...

Soujit Sen Gupta; Theruvakkattil Sreenivasan Sreeprasad; Shihabudheen Mundampra Maliyekkal; Sarit Kumar Das; Thalappil Pradeep

2012-07-12T23:59:59.000Z

190

Water, Light and Heat Stress Effects on Fremont Cottonwood Photosynthesis.  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

?? Seedlings of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), a California native riparian foundation species, are vulnerable to water stress from rapid water-table declines and the interactions (more)

Tozzi, Emily Sharp

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

191

FY 2012 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

FY 2012 Summary Control Table by Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Current Congressional Annualized Congressional Approp. Request CR Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Appropriation Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: Energy Programs Energy efficiency and renewable energy....................................... 2,216,392 2,355,473 2,242,500 3,200,053 +983,661 +44.4% Electricity delivery and energy reliability........................................ 168,484 185,930 171,982 237,717 +69,233 +41.1% Nuclear energy............................................................................. 774,578 824,052 786,637 754,028

192

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Modeling and Analysis Papers> Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Modeling and Analysis Papers> Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation>Tables Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Actual vs. Forecasts Available formats Excel (.xls) for printable spreadsheet data (Microsoft Excel required) MS Excel Viewer PDF (Acrobat Reader required Download Acrobat Reader ) Adobe Acrobat Reader Logo Table 2. Total Energy Consumption Excel, PDF Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption Excel, PDF Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption Excel, PDF Table 5. Total Coal Consumption Excel, PDF Table 6. Total Electricity Sales Excel, PDF Table 7. Crude Oil Production Excel, PDF Table 8. Natural Gas Production Excel, PDF Table 9. Coal Production Excel, PDF Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports Excel, PDF Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports Excel, PDF

193

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation - Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Annual Energy Outlook Forecast Evaluation Actual vs. Forecasts Available formats Excel (.xls) for printable spreadsheet data (Microsoft Excel required) PDF (Acrobat Reader required) Table 2. Total Energy Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 3. Total Petroleum Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 4. Total Natural Gas Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 5. Total Coal Consumption HTML, Excel, PDF Table 6. Total Electricity Sales HTML, Excel, PDF Table 7. Crude Oil Production HTML, Excel, PDF Table 8. Natural Gas Production HTML, Excel, PDF Table 9. Coal Production HTML, Excel, PDF Table 10. Net Petroleum Imports HTML, Excel, PDF Table 11. Net Natural Gas Imports HTML, Excel, PDF Table 12. Net Coal Exports HTML, Excel, PDF Table 13. World Oil Prices HTML, Excel, PDF

194

Modeling and Optimization of PEMFC Systems and its Application to Direct Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

operating conditions. Direct Hydrogen Fuel Cell System Modelconditions for a direct hydrogen fuel cell system Table 1simulation tool for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, Journal of

Zhao, Hengbing; Burke, Andy

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

195

Report on Produced Water  

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

September 2009 Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices Page 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Background ................................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 11

196

The Western Water Assessment Annual RISA Report  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The Western Water Assessment Annual RISA Report Reporting Period: January 2007-December 2007 #12;Western Water Assessment 2007 Annual Report 2 Table of Contents I. Areas of Focus-30 #12;Western Water Assessment 2007 Annual Report 3

Neff, Jason

197

Development of a new sorptive extraction method based on simultaneous direct and headspace sampling modes for the screening of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water samples  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract A new straightforward and inexpensive sample screening method for both EPA and EU priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in water has been developed. The method is based on combined direct immersion and headspace (DIHS) sorptive extraction, using low-cost disposable material, coupled to ultraperformance liquid chromatography with fluorescence and UV detection (UPLC-FD-UV). Extraction parameters, such as the sampling mode, extraction time and ionic strength were investigated in detail and optimized. Under optimized conditions, water samples (16mL) were concentrated in silicone disks by headspace (HS) and direct immersion (DI) modes simultaneously, at room temperature for 9h for the majority of the 24 studied compounds. Ultrasound-assisted desorption of extracted analytes in acetonitrile was carried out also at room temperature. The optimized chromatographic method provided a good linearity (R?0.9991) and a broad linear range for all studied PAHs. The proposed analytical procedure exhibited a good precision level with relative standard deviations below 15% for all analytes. Quantification limits between 0.7 and 2.3gL?1 and 0.16 and 3.90ngL?1 were obtained for compounds analyzed by UV (acenaphtylene, cyclopenta[c,d]pyrene and benzo[j]fluoranthene) and fluorescence, respectively. Finally, the proposed method was applied to the determination of \\{PAHs\\} in different real tap, river and wastewater samples.

Sara Trianes; Ma Teresa Pena; Ma Carmen Casais; Ma Carmen Mejuto

2015-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

198

Economic Analysis on Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in CANDU Reactors - III: Spent DUPIC Fuel Disposal Cost  

SciTech Connect

The disposal costs of spent pressurized water reactor (PWR), Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactor, and DUPIC fuels have been estimated based on available literature data and the engineering design of a spent CANDU fuel disposal facility by the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The cost estimation was carried out by the normalization concept of total electricity generation. Therefore, the future electricity generation scale was analyzed to evaluate the appropriate capacity of the high-level waste disposal facility in Korea, which is a key parameter of the disposal cost estimation. Based on the total electricity generation scale, it is concluded that the disposal unit costs for spent CANDU natural uranium, CANDU-DUPIC, and PWR fuels are 192.3, 388.5, and 696.5 $/kg heavy element, respectively.

Ko, Won Il; Choi, Hangbok; Roh, Gyuhong; Yang, Myung Seung [Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (Korea, Republic of)

2001-05-15T23:59:59.000Z

199

table14.xls  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 14. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices, Actual vs. Reference Case Projections Table 14. Natural Gas Wellhead Prices, Actual vs. Reference Case Projections (current dollars per thousand cubic feet) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 AEO 1982 4.32 5.47 6.67 7.51 8.04 8.57 AEO 1983 2.93 3.11 3.46 3.93 4.56 5.26 12.74 AEO 1984 2.77 2.90 3.21 3.63 4.13 4.79 9.33 AEO 1985 2.60 2.61 2.66 2.71 2.94 3.35 3.85 4.46 5.10 5.83 6.67 AEO 1986 1.73 1.96 2.29 2.54 2.81 3.15 3.73 4.34 5.06 5.90 6.79 7.70 8.62 9.68 10.80 AEO 1987 1.83 1.95 2.11 2.28 2.49 2.72 3.08 3.51 4.07 7.54 AEO 1989* 1.62 1.70 1.91 2.13 2.58 3.04 3.48 3.93 4.76 5.23 5.80 6.43 6.98 AEO 1990 1.78 1.88 2.93 5.36 AEO 1991 1.77 1.90 2.11 2.30 2.42 2.51 2.60 2.74 2.91 3.29 3.75 4.31 5.07 5.77 6.45 AEO 1992 1.69 1.85 2.03 2.15 2.35 2.51 2.74 3.01 3.40 3.81 4.24 4.74 5.25 5.78 AEO 1993 1.85 1.94 2.09 2.30 2.44 2.60 2.85 3.12 3.47 3.84 4.31 4.81 5.28

200

Direct Discharge Permit (Vermont)  

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

A direct discharge permit is required if a project involves the discharge of pollutants to state waters. For generation purposes, this involves the withdrawal of surface water for cooling purposes...

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


201

Code Tables | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

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

202

Experimental analysis of a direct expansion solar assisted heat pump with integral storage tank for domestic water heating under zero solar radiation conditions  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper deals with the experimental evaluation of the performance of a direct expansion solar assisted heat pump water heating (DX-SAHPWH) system working under zero solar radiation conditions at static heating operation mode of the storage tank. The DX-SAHPWH system includes two bare solar collectors as evaporator, a \\{R134a\\} rotary-type hermetic compressor, a thermostatic expansion valve and a helical coil condenser immersed in a 300L water storage tank. The zero solar radiation and stable ambient air temperature working conditions were established by placing the solar collectors into a climate chamber. The analysis is based on experimental data taken from the DX-SAHPWH provided by the manufacturer and equipped with an appropriate data acquisition system. In the paper, the experimental facility, the data acquisition system and the experimental methodology are described. Performance parameters to evaluate the energy efficiency, such as COP and equivalent seasonal performance factors (SPFe) for the heating period, and the water thermal stratification in the storage tank are defined and obtained from the experimental data. Results from the experimental analysis under transient operating working conditions of the DX-SAHPWH system and its main components are shown and discussed. Lastly, the Huang and Lee DX-SAHPWH performance evaluation method was applied resulting in a characteristic COP of 3.23 for the DX-SAHPWH system evaluated under zero solar radiation condition.

Jos Fernndez-Seara; Carolina Pieiro; J. Alberto Dopazo; F. Fernandes; Paulo X.B. Sousa

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

203

MECS Fuel Oil Tables  

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

: Actual, Minimum and Maximum Use Values for Fuel Oils and Natural Gas : Actual, Minimum and Maximum Use Values for Fuel Oils and Natural Gas Year Distillate Fuel Oil (TBtu) Actual Minimum Maximum Discretionary Rate 1985 185 148 1224 3.4% 1994 152 125 1020 3.1% Residual Fuel Oil (TBtu) Actual Minimum Maximum Discretionary Rate 1985 505 290 1577 16.7% 1994 441 241 1249 19.8% Natural Gas (TBtu) Actual Minimum Maximum Discretionary Rate 1985 4656 2702 5233 77.2% 1994 6141 4435 6758 73.4% Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, 1985 and 1994 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Surveys. Table 2: Establishments That Actually Switched Between Natural Gas and Residual Fuel Oil Type of Switch Number of Establishments in Population Number That Use Original Fuel Percentage That Use Original Fuel Number That Can Switch to Another Fuel Percentage That Can Switch to Another Fuel Number That Actually Made a Switch Percentage That Actually Made a Switch

204

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

Turbines The Gas Turbine Handbook The Gas Turbine Handbook TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Updated Author Contact Information Introduction - Rich Dennis, Turbines Technology Manager 1.1 Simple and Combined Cycles - Claire Soares 1.1-1 Introduction 1.1-2 Applications 1.1-3 Applications versatility 1.1-4 The History of the Gas Turbine 1.1-5 Gas Turbine, Major Components, Modules, and systems 1.1-6 Design development with Gas Turbines 1.1-7 Gas Turbine Performance 1.1-8 Combined Cycles 1.1-9 Notes 1.2 Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) - Massod Ramezan and Gary Stiegel 1.2-1 Introduction 1.2-2 The Gasification Process 1.2-3 IGCC Systems 1.2-4 Gasifier Improvements 1.2-5 Gas Separation Improvements 1.2-6 Conclusions 1.2-7 Notes 1.2.1 Different Types of Gasifiers and Their Integration with Gas Turbines - Jeffrey Phillips

205

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

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

Report: "Cost-Effective Treatment of Produced Water Using Co-Produced Energy Sources for Small Producers," PRRC/NMT/Harvard Report: "Cost-Effective Treatment of Produced Water Using Co-Produced Energy Sources for Small Producers," PRRC/NMT/Harvard Final Report to Title of Project: Cost-Effective Treatment of Produced Water Using Co-Produced Energy Sources for Small Producers 07123-05.FINAL Date: January 5, 2012 Team Members: Robert Balch, Program Manager, PI Liangxiong Li, Principle Investigator Shanker Muraleedharan Jeff Harvard Point of Contact: Telephone Number: (575) 835-5305 Facsimile Number: (505) 835-6031 e-mail address: balch@prrc.nmt.edu Performer: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center Performer Address: 801 Leroy Place Socorro, NM 87801 USA Participants: Harvard Petroleum Corporation

206

EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2009 - chapter Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Chapter Tables Chapter Tables Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030 Chapter Tables Table 1. Estimated fuel economy for light-duty vehicles, based on proposed CAFE standards, 2010-2015 Table 2. State appliance efficiency standards and potential future actions Table 3. State renewable portfolio standards Table 4. Key analyses from "issues in Focus" in recent AEOs Table 5. Liquid fuels production in three cases, 2007 and 2030 Table 6. Assumptions used in comparing conventional and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles Table 7. Conventional vehicle and plug-in hybrid system component costs for mid-size vehicles at volume production Table 8. Technically recoverable resources of crude oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, as of January 1, 2007

207

Table 4.xls  

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

Emission Reductions and Sequestration Reported at Project and Entity Levels, Data Year 2005 Emission Reductions and Sequestration Reported at Project and Entity Levels, Data Year 2005 (Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent) Report Name Sector Reduction Type Project Level Entity Level A&N Electric Cooperative Electric Providers Indirect 6,243 AES Hawaii, Inc. Electric Providers Sequestration 1,540,000 1,540,000 AES SeaWest, Inc. Electric Providers Direct 16 Indirect 220,420 AES Shady Point, LLC Electric Providers Sequestration 4,150,000 4,150,000 AES Thames, LLC Electric Providers Sequestration 410,000 410,000 AES Warrior Run, LLC Electric Providers Direct 41,386 41,386 Alabama Biomass Partners, Ltd Alternative Energy Unspecified (EZ) 77,012 Alcan Primary Products Corporation, Sebree Works Industrial Direct 457,800 457,800 Algonquin Power - Cambrian Pacific Genco LLC Alternative Energy

208

MECS 1991 Publications and Tables  

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

Publication and Tables Publication and Tables Publication and Tables Figure showing the Largest Energy Consumers in the Manufacturing Sector You have the option of downloading the entire report or selected sections of the report. Full Report - Manufacturing Consumption of Energy 1991 (file size 17.2 MB) pages:566 Selected Sections Main Text (file size 380,153 bytes) pages: 33, includes the following: Contacts Contents Executive Summary Introduction Energy Consumption in the Manufacturing Sector: An Overview Energy Consumption in the Manufacturing Sector, 1991 Manufacturing Capability To Switch Fuels Appendices Appendix A. Detailed Tables Appendix B. Survey Design, Implementation, and Estimates (file size 141,211 bytes) pages: 22. Appendix C. Quality of the Data (file size 135,511 bytes) pages: 8.

209

Water Quality Guide for Livestock and Poultry  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

This publication discusses some of the most common contaminants in the drinking water of livestock and poultry. A table lists the Maximum Contaminant Level of some harmful substances....

Mukhtar, Saqib

1998-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

210

Effect of Drip Irrigation with Saline Water on Water Use Efficiency and Quality of Watermelons  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

High ground water salinity, high water table and secondary soil salinization are dominant ... the purposes of eliminating secondary salinity and enhancing water use efficiency, drip irrigation of watermelons with...

Lei Tingwu; Xiao Juan; Li Guangyong; Mao Jianhua

2003-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

211

Status of US direct utilization of geothermal energy  

SciTech Connect

A table presents a summary by state of the status of geothermal direct heat projects of which Mitre was aware as of March 31, 1981. By the end of 1980, 211 direct use projects in 14 states were providing about 12,650 billion Btus annually. Of this total, 10,000 billion Btus/yr is associated with one water-flood oil-recovery project in Wyoming. Thus for all other geothermal direct heat installations, the annual heat use was about 2650 billion Btus at the end of 1980. Fifteen projects put into effect during 1980, supplying 277 billion Btus are known. This is about 10% of the previously installed total. It is anticipated that by the end of 1980 another 29 projects will be completed and be supplying an additional 5580 billion Btus annually. If so, the use of geothermal heat in the residential/commercial/industrial sectors will have tripled in two years.

Walker, B.A.; Entingh, D.J.

1981-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

212

EIA - Appendix A - Reference Case Projection Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Tables (2005-2035) Tables (2005-2035) International Energy Outlook 2010 Reference Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Appendix A. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table A1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table A2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

213

Experimental study on roll-bond collector/evaporator with optimized-channel used in direct expansion solar assisted heat pump water heating system  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract In this investigation, a direct expansion solar assisted heat pump (DX-SAHP) water heating system using an optimized-channel roll-bond collector/evaporator was designed, fabricated and tested. Optimized fractal T-shape and honeycomb shaped channel patterns were adopted to improve the thermal performance of the roll-bond panel, which acts as both the evaporator for the heat pump system and the collector for solar thermal utilization. The performance of the studied water heating system using the south-faced, wall-mounted roll-bond panel with the new composite channel patterns was investigated experimentally. Results show that, under the experimental conditions, the roll-bond panel with optimized channel pattern shows better thermal properties, and the performance the DX-SAHP system is significantly enhanced by using the roll-bond panel with optimized channel pattern. Compared to the conventional parallel channel pattern, fractal T-shaped channel pattern enhanced COP of the system by 14.6%, and heating capacity by 17.3%. And the honeycomb shaped channel pattern further enhanced COP and heating capacity of the system by 5.9% and 6.2%.

Xiaolin Sun; Jingyi Wu; Yanjun Dai; Ruzhu Wang

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

214

EIA - Supplement Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

10 10 Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Table 1. New England Excel Gif Table 2. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 3. East North Central Excel Gif Table 4. West North Central Excel Gif Table 5. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 6. East South Central Excel Gif Table 7. West South Central Excel Gif Table 8. Mountain Excel Gif Table 9. Pacific Excel Gif Table 10. Total United States Excel Gif Energy Prices by Sector and Source Table 11. New England Excel Gif Table 12. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 13. East North Central Excel Gif Table 14. West North Central Excel Gif Table 15. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 16. East South Central Excel Gif Table 17. West South Central Excel Gif Table 18. Mountain Excel Gif Table 19. Pacific

215

EIA - Supplement Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

09 09 Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Table 1. New England Excel Gif Table 2. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 3. East North Central Excel Gif Table 4. West North Central Excel Gif Table 5. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 6. East South Central Excel Gif Table 7. West South Central Excel Gif Table 8. Mountain Excel Gif Table 9. Pacific Excel Gif Table 10. Total United States Excel Gif Energy Prices by Sector and Source Table 11. New England Excel Gif Table 12. Middle Atlantic Excel Gif Table 13. East North Central Excel Gif Table 14. West North Central Excel Gif Table 15. South Atlantic Excel Gif Table 16. East South Central Excel Gif Table 17. West South Central Excel Gif Table 18. Mountain Excel Gif Table 19. Pacific

216

Supplement Tables - Contacts  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (AEO2000) was prepared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, under the direction of Mary J. Hutzler (mhutzler@ eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting; Susan H. Holte (sholte@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-4838), Director, Demand and Integration Division; James M. Kendell (jkendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director, Oil and Gas Division; Scott Sitzer (ssitzer@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2308), Director, Coal and Electric Power Division; and Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Modeling Analyst: Annual Energy Outlook 2000 (AEO2000) was prepared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, under the direction of Mary J. Hutzler (mhutzler@ eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting; Susan H. Holte (sholte@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-4838), Director, Demand and Integration Division; James M. Kendell (jkendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director, Oil and Gas Division; Scott Sitzer (ssitzer@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2308), Director, Coal and Electric Power Division; and Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Modeling Analyst: For ordering information and questions on other energy statistics available from EIA, please contact EIA’s National Energy Information Center. Addresses, telephone numbers, and hours are as follows:

217

Optimum Algorithms for a Model of Direct Chaining  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Direct chaining is a popular and efficient class of hashing algorithms. In this paper we study optimum algorithms among direct chaining methods, under the restrictions that the records in the hash table are not moved after ...

Vitter, Jeffrey Scott; Chen, Wen-Chin

1985-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

218

Nature Bulletin Table of Contents  

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

Table of Contents: Table of Contents: Here is our table of contents for the Forset Preserve District of Cook Country Nature Bulletins. To search, go to the Natuere Bulletin's Search Engine and type in your topic. You can also use your browser's "FIND" command to search the 750+ article titles here for a specific subject! Fish Smother Under Ice Coyotes in Cook County Tough Times for the Muskrats Wild Geese and Ducks Fly North Squirrels Spring Frogs Snapping Turtles A Phenomenal Spring Good People Do Not Pick Wildflowers Fire is the Enemy of Field and Forest Crows Earthworms Bees Crayfish Floods Handaxes and Knives in the Forest Preserves Ant Sanctuary Conservation Mosquitoes More About Mosquitoes Fishing in the Forest Preserve Our River Grasshoppers Chiggers Ticks Poison Ivy Fireflies

219

MTS Table Top Load frame  

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

MTS Table Top Load frame MTS Table Top Load frame The Non-destructive Evaluation group operates an MTS Table Top Load frame for ultimate strength and life cycle testing of various ceramic, ceramic-matrix (FGI), carbon, carbon fiber, cermet (CMC) and metal alloy engineering samples. The load frame is a servo-hydraulic type designed to function in a closed loop configuration under computer control. The system can perform non-cyclic, tension, compression and flexure testing and cyclic fatigue tests. The system is comprised of two parts: * The Load Frame and * The Control System. Load Frame The Load Frame (figure 1) is a cross-head assembly which includes a single moving grip, a stationary grip and LVDT position sensor. It can generate up to 25 kN (5.5 kip) of force in the sample under test and can

220

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 1 to 116 Complete set of Supplemental Tables Complete set of Supplemental Tables. Need help, please contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector Table 1. New England Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 2. Middle Atlantic Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 3. East North Central Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 4. West North Central

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


221

Supplement Tables - Supplemental Data  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 For Further Information . . . The Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) was prepared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), under the direction of John J. Conti (john.conti@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Director, Integrated Analysis and Forecasting and Acting Director, International, Economic and Greenhouse Gases Division; Paul D. Holtberg (paul.holtberg@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-1284), Director, Demand and Integration Division; Joseph A. Beamon (joseph.beamon@eia.doe.gov, 202-586-2025), Director, Coal and Electric Power Division; James M. Kendell (james.kendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director, Oil and Gas Division; and Andy S. Kydes (andy.kydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Technical Advisor. For ordering information and questions on other energy statistics available from EIA, please contact EIA's National Energy Information Center. Addresses, telephone numbers, and hours are as follows:

222

Supplement Tables - Contacts  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Homepage Homepage For Further Information... The Annual Energy Outlook 2001 (AEO2001) was prepared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, under the direction of Mary J. Hutzler (mhutzler@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting; Susan H. Holte (sholte@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-4838), Director of the Demand and Integration Division; James M. Kendell (jkendell@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-9646), Director of the Oil and Gas Division; Scott Sitzer (ssitzer@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2308), Director of the Coal and Electric Power Division; and Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Modeling Analyst. For ordering information and questions on other energy statistics available from EIA, please contact EIA’s National Energy Information Center. Addresses, telephone numbers, and hours are as follows:

223

EIA - Supplement Tables - Contact  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 For Further Information . . . The Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO2008) was prepared by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), under the direction of John J. Conti (john.conti@eia.doe.gov, 202-586-2222), Director, Integrated Analysis and Forecasting; Paul D. Holtberg (paul.holtberg@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-1284), Director, Demand and Integration Division; Joseph A. Beamon (jbeamon@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2025), Director, Coal and Electric Power Division; A. Michael Schaal (michael.schaal@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-5590), Director, Oil and Gas Division; Glen E. Sweetnam (glen.sweetnam@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2188), Director, International, Economic, and Greenhouse Gases Division; and Andy S. Kydes (akydes@eia.doe.gov, 202/586-2222), Senior Technical Advisor.

224

Table 2.xls  

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

Project-level Reductions and Sequestration Reported, Data Year 2005 Project-level Reductions and Sequestration Reported, Data Year 2005 (Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Indirect 1 85 621 699 3,129 3,411 4,120 3,850 5,988 4,211 6,193 4,890 4,102 6,243 Sequestration 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,540,000 Direct 16 Indirect 16,191 14,656 17,745 17,748 17,859 19,897 18,925 21,070 85,711 118,115 156,534 236,368 215,033 214,678 220,420 Sequestration 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 Sequestration 550,000 70,000 290,000 370,000 480,000 440,000 440,000 590,000 530,000 370,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 410,000 Direct 1,091 38,702 44,227

225

FRAUD POLICY Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Shihadeh, Alan

226

CHP NOTEBOOK Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Braun, Paul

227

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

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

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

228

PARENT HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Adali, Tulay

229

Automatic Construction of Diagnostic Tables  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

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

W. R. Willcox; S. P. Lapage

1972-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

230

Table Of Contents Section: Page  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

with federal, state, and local drinking water standards. b. When drinking water is obtained from an on Act, 40 CFR 141-143, and any state, or local drinking water regulations. c. If water is not available with the services provided by a licensed potable water contractor. d. Outside the Continental Unites States (OCONUS

US Army Corps of Engineers

231

An optimal filtering algorithm for table constraints  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

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

Jean-Baptiste Mairy; Pascal Van Hentenryck; Yves Deville

2012-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

232

Table Name query? | OpenEI Community  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

233

Chemistry Department Assessment Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

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

Bogaerts, Steven

234

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

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

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

235

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

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

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

236

Action Codes Table | National Nuclear Security Administration  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

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

237

Global land and water grabbing  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...ratio between blue water and irrigation efficiency. Values per unit area refer to green and max blue water per...Arab Emirates, India, United Kingdom, Egypt, China, and Israel (Table 2...land and water grabbing enhance food and energy availability in the grabbing country...

Maria Cristina Rulli; Antonio Saviori; Paolo DOdorico

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

238

Description of Energy Intensity Tables (12)  

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

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

239

Sandia National Labs: PCNSC: IBA Table  

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

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

240

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables - Supplemental  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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


241

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables - Supplemental  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

242

ULTRA-DEEP WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND  

Energy Savers (EERE)

ULTRA-DEEP WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2014 ULTRA-DEEPWATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS i Table of Contents Research and...

243

Annual Energy Outlook 2007 - Low Price Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

244

Annual Energy Outlook 2007 - Low Economic Growth Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

245

Water effects of the use of western coal for electrical production  

SciTech Connect

Water may be a constraint on the expanded development of coal resources in the semi-arid western United States. Water allocation in the West has been determined by the appropriative rights doctrine which allows perpetual use of water sources by those who first claim it for beneficial purposes. This has had the effect of placing a dominative interest in water allocation in one economic sector: agriculture. New water sources are available to coal producers but political and economic problems must be overcome. Water is required by every phase of coal development. Mines use water for dust control and land reclamation. Coal slurry pipelines would use water as a transport medium. Steam electric power plants use water for cooling, cleaning, and in the boiler. Coal gasification plants would use water for cooling, cleaning, and as a material input. In addition to these direct uses of water by coal development, the people who build and operate the development demand water for domestic and recreational purposes. The quantity of water required for a given element of a coal development is site specific and dependent on many factors. The available literature cites a range of estimates of the amount of water required for each type of development. The width of this range seems related to the stage of development of the particular technology. Estimates of water requirements for various schemes to provide an average electrical load of 9 GWe to a load center 1000 miles from western mines are shown in Table 5.

Rogers, E.A.

1980-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

246

Table  

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

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

247

Table  

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

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

248

Table  

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

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

249

Table  

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

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

250

Table  

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

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

251

Table  

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

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

252

Table  

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

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

253

Table  

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

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

254

Table  

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

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

255

Table  

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

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

256

Table  

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

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

257

Table  

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

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

258

Table  

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

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

259

Table  

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

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

260

Table  

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

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

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


261

Table  

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

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

262

Table  

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

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

263

Table  

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

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

264

Table  

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

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

265

Table  

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

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

266

Table  

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

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

267

Table  

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

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

268

Table  

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

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

269

Table  

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

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

270

Table  

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

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

271

Table  

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

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

272

Table  

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

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

273

Table  

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

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

274

Table  

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

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

275

Table  

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

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

276

Table  

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

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

277

Table  

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

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

278

Table  

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

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

279

Table  

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

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

280

Table  

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

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

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


281

Table  

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

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

282

Table  

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

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

283

Table  

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

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

284

Variable White Dwarf Data Tables  

SciTech Connect

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

Bradley, P. A.

1997-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

285

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2008 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 2 0 6,256 6,258 Delaware ........................ 0 2 0 0 2 Georgia........................... 0 * 0 0 * Hawaii............................. 2,554 5 0 0 2,559 Illinois.............................. 0 15 0 0 15 Indiana............................ 0 30 0 0 30 Iowa ................................ 0 24 3 0 27 Kentucky......................... 0 15 0 0 15 Maryland ......................... 0 181 0 0 181 Massachusetts................ 0 13 0 0 13 Minnesota ....................... 0 46 0 0 46 Missouri .......................... * 6 0 0 6 Nebraska ........................ 0 28 0 0 28 New Hampshire .............. 0 44 0 0 44 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 489 489 New York ........................

286

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2009 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 3 0 7,525 7,527 Connecticut..................... 0 * 0 0 * Delaware ........................ 0 2 0 0 2 Georgia........................... 0 0 52 * 52 Hawaii............................. 2,438 9 0 0 2,447 Illinois.............................. 0 20 0 0 20 Indiana............................ 0 * 0 0 * Iowa ................................ 0 3 0 0 3 Kentucky......................... 0 18 0 0 18 Maryland ......................... 0 170 0 0 170 Massachusetts................ 0 10 0 0 10 Minnesota ....................... 0 47 0 0 47 Missouri .......................... * 10 0 0 10 Nebraska ........................ 0 18 0 0 18 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 454 454 New York ........................

287

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2010 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 4 0 5,144 5,148 Delaware ........................ 0 1 0 0 1 Georgia........................... 0 0 732 0 732 Hawaii............................. 2,465 6 0 0 2,472 Illinois.............................. 0 17 0 0 17 Indiana............................ 0 1 0 0 1 Iowa ................................ 0 2 0 0 2 Kentucky......................... 0 5 0 0 5 Louisiana ........................ 0 0 249 0 249 Maryland ......................... 0 115 0 0 115 Massachusetts................ 0 * 0 0 * Minnesota ....................... 0 12 0 0 12 Missouri .......................... * 18 0 0 18 Nebraska ........................ 0 12 0 0 12 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 457 457 New York ........................

288

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2007 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ......................... 0 3 0 6,866 6,869 Delaware ........................ 0 5 0 0 5 Georgia........................... 0 2 0 0 2 Hawaii............................. 2,679 4 0 0 2,683 Illinois.............................. 0 11 0 0 11 Indiana............................ 0 81 0 554 635 Iowa ................................ 0 2 38 0 40 Kentucky......................... 0 124 0 0 124 Maryland ......................... 0 245 0 0 245 Massachusetts................ 0 15 0 0 15 Minnesota ....................... 0 54 0 0 54 Missouri .......................... 7 60 0 0 66 Nebraska ........................ 0 33 0 0 33 New Hampshire .............. 0 9 0 0 9 New Jersey ..................... 0 0 0 379 379 New York ........................

289

Table-top job analysis  

SciTech Connect

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

Not Available

1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

290

EIA-Annual Energy Outlook 2010 - Low Economic Growth Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

291

EIA-Annual Energy Outlook 2010 - High Economic Growth Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

292

Microsoft Word - table_09.doc  

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

3 3 Table 9 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:08:24 PM Table 9. Underground natural gas storage - by season, 2011-2013 (volumes in billion cubic feet) Natural Gas in Underground Storage at End of Period Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Storage Activity Year, Season, and Month Base Gas Working Gas Total Volume Percent Injections Withdrawals Net Withdrawals a 2011 Refill Season April 4,304 1,788 6,092 -223 -11.1 312 100 -212 May 4,304 2,187 6,491 -233 -9.6 458 58 -399 June 4,302 2,530 6,831 -210 -7.7 421 80 -340 July 4,300 2,775 7,075 -190 -6.4 359 116 -244 August 4,300 3,019 7,319 -134 -4.2 370 126 -244 September 4,301 3,416 7,717 -92 -2.6 454 55

293

All Price Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

1) 1) June 2013 State Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates 1970 Through 2011 2011 Price and Expenditure Summary Tables Table E1. Primary Energy, Electricity, and Total Energy Price Estimates, 2011 (Dollars per Million Btu) State Primary Energy Electric Power Sector g,h Retail Electricity Total Energy g,i Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass Total g,h,i Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel b LPG c Motor Gasoline d Residual Fuel Oil Other e Total Wood and Waste f Alabama 3.09 5.66 26.37 22.77 25.54 27.12 13.18 19.42 25.90 0.61 3.01 8.75 2.56 27.08 19.85 Alaska 3.64 6.70 29.33 23.12 29.76 31.60 20.07 34.62 26.61 - 14.42 20.85 6.36 47.13 25.17 Arizona 1.99 7.07 27.73 22.84 31.95 26.97 17.00 17.23 26.71 0.75 6.31 10.79 2.16 28.46 25.23 Arkansas 1.93 6.94 26.37 22.45 26.66 27.35 17.35 33.22

294

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

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

U.S. Energy Information Administration | Natural Gas Monthly 31 Table 13 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:28:44 PM Table 13. Activities of underground natural gas storage operators, by state, September 2013 (volumes in million cubic feet) State Field Count Total Storage Capacity Working Gas Storage Capacity Natural Gas in Underground Storage at End of Period Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Storage Activity Base Gas Working Gas Total Volume Percent Injections Withdrawals Alabama 2 35,400 27,350 8,050 21,262 29,312 2,852 15.5 1,743 450 Alaska a 5 83,592 67,915 14,197 20,455 34,652 NA NA 1,981 30 Arkansas 2 21,853 12,178 9,648 3,372 13,020 -1,050 -23.7 204 0 California 14 599,711 374,296

295

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4) 4) June 2007 State Energy Consumption Estimates 1960 Through 2004 2004 Consumption Summary Tables Table S1. Energy Consumption Estimates by Source and End-Use Sector, 2004 (Trillion Btu) State Total Energy b Sources End-Use Sectors a Coal Natural Gas c Petroleum Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Power d Biomass e Other f Net Interstate Flow of Electricity/Losses g Residential Commercial Industrial b Transportation Alabama 2,159.7 853.9 404.0 638.5 329.9 106.5 185.0 0.1 -358.2 393.7 270.2 1,001.1 494.7 Alaska 779.1 14.1 411.8 334.8 0.0 15.0 3.3 0.1 0.0 56.4 63.4 393.4 266.0 Arizona 1,436.6 425.4 354.9 562.8 293.1 69.9 8.7 3.6 -281.7 368.5 326.0 231.2 511.0 Arkansas 1,135.9 270.2 228.9 388.3 161.1 36.5 76.0 0.6 -25.7 218.3 154.7 473.9 288.9 California 8,364.6 68.9 2,474.2 3,787.8 315.6 342.2

296

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9) 9) June 2011 State Energy Consumption Estimates 1960 Through 2009 2009 Consumption Summary Tables Table C1. Energy Consumption Overview: Estimates by Energy Source and End-Use Sector, 2009 (Trillion Btu) State Total Energy b Sources End-Use Sectors a Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Renewable Energy e Net Interstate Flow of Electricity/ Losses f Net Electricity Imports Residential Commercial Industrial b Transportation Coal Natural Gas c Petroleum d Total Alabama 1,906.8 631.0 473.9 583.9 1,688.8 415.4 272.9 -470.3 0.0 383.2 266.0 788.5 469.2 Alaska 630.4 14.5 344.0 255.7 614.1 0.0 16.3 0.0 (s) 53.4 61.0 325.4 190.6 Arizona 1,454.3 413.3 376.7 520.8 1,310.8 320.7 103.5 -279.9 -0.8 400.8 352.1 207.8 493.6 Arkansas 1,054.8 264.1 248.1 343.1 855.3 158.7 126.5 -85.7 0.0 226.3 167.0 372.5

297

Microsoft Word - table_01.doc  

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

3 3 Table 1 Table 1. Summary of natural gas supply and disposition in the United States, 2008-2013 (billion cubic feet) Year and Month Gross Withdrawals Marketed Production NGPL Production a Dry Gas Production b Supplemental Gaseous Fuels c Net Imports Net Storage Withdrawals d Balancing Item e Consumption f 2008 Total 25,636 21,112 953 20,159 61 3,021 34 2 23,277 2009 Total 26,057 21,648 1,024 20,624 65 2,679 -355 -103 22,910 2010 Total 26,816 22,382 1,066 21,316 65 2,604 -13 115 24,087 2011 January 2,299 1,953 92 1,861 5 236 811 R -24 R 2,889 February 2,104 1,729 82 1,647 4 186 594 R 20 R 2,452 March 2,411 2,002 95 1,908 5 171 151 R -4 R 2,230 April 2,350 1,961 93 1,868 5 R 152 -216 R 17 R 1,825 May 2,411 2,031

298

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 2. Natural gas production, transmission, and consumption, by state, 2012 (million cubic feet) U.S. Energy Information Administration | Natural Gas Annual 4 Table 2 Alabama 215,710 7,110 -162,223 617,883 0 -2,478 0 666,738 Alaska 351,259 21,470 22,663 0 -9,342 0 0 343,110 Arizona 117 0 -13,236 389,036 -43,838 0 0 332,079 Arkansas 1,146,168 424 -18,281 -831,755 0 -103 0 295,811 California 246,822 12,755 104,820 2,222,355 -109,787 48,071 0 2,403,385 Colorado 1,709,376 81,943 -107,940 -1,077,968 0 2,570 4,412 443,367 Connecticut 0 0 4,191 225,228 0 260 0 229,159 Delaware 0 0 21,035 80,692 0 51 * 101,676 District of Columbia 0 0 497 28,075 0 0 0 28,572 Florida 18,681 0 15,168 1,294,620 0 0 0 1,328,469

299

TableHC2.12.xls  

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

Detached Attached 2 to 4 Units Energy Information Administration: 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Preliminary Housing Characteristics Tables Million U.S. Housing...

300

TableHC10.13.xls  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

or More... 0.3 Q Q Q Q Lighting Usage Indicators U.S. Census Region Northeast Midwest Table HC10.13 Lighting Usage...

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


301

TABLE54.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Administration (EIA) Forms EIA-812, "Monthly Product Pipeline Report," and EIA-813, Monthly Crude Oil Report." Table 54. Movements of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products by Pipeline...

302

TABLE19.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Table 19. PAD District IV-Year-to-Date Supply, Disposition, and Ending Stocks of Crude Oil and Petroleum (Thousand Barrels) January-July 2004 Products, Crude Oil...

303

TABLE15.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Table 15. PAD District III-Year-to-Date Supply, Disposition, and Ending Stocks of Crude Oil and Petroleum (Thousand Barrels) January-July 2004 Products, Crude Oil...

304

TABLE53.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Table 53. Movements of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products by Pipeline, Tanker, and Barge Between July 2004 Crude Oil ... 0 383 0...

305

TABLE11.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

(Thousand Barrels) Table 11. PAD District II-Year-to-Date Supply, Disposition, and Ending Stocks of Crude Oil and Petroleum January-July 2004 Products, Crude Oil...

306

2011 Annual Report Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

) ...................12 Smart Grid Cyber Security.....................................................13 ICT Supply ChainComputer Security Division 2011 Annual Report #12;Table of Contents Welcome ................................................................. 1 Division Organization .................................................2 The Computer Security

307

Summary Statistics Table 1. Crude Oil Prices  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Cost Report." Figure Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1996 3 Table 2. U.S. Refiner Prices of Petroleum Products to End Users (Cents per Gallon...

308

GIS DEVELOPMENT GUIDE Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

GIS DEVELOPMENT GUIDE Volume II Table of Contents SURVEY OF AVAILABLE DATA Introduction ...................................................................................13 EVALUATING GIS HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE Introduction ...................................................................................14 Sources of Information About GIS......................................................14 GIS

Ghelli, Giorgio

309

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

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

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

310

"RSE Table N5.2. Relative Standard Errors for Table N5.2;"  

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

2. Relative Standard Errors for Table N5.2;" 2. Relative Standard Errors for Table N5.2;" " Unit: Percents." ,,"S e l e c t e d","W o o d","a n d","W o o d -","R e l a t e d","P r o d u c t s" ,,,,,"B i o m a s s" ,,,,,,"Wood Residues" ,,,,,,"and","Wood-Related" " "," ","Pulping Liquor"," "," ","Wood","Byproducts","and",," " "NAICS"," ","or","Biomass","Agricultural","Harvested Directly","from Mill","Paper-Related" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Black Liquor","Total(b)","Waste(c)","from Trees(d)","Processing(e)","Refuse(f)"

311

Annual Energy Outlook 2009 - High Price Case Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6-2030) 6-2030) Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030 XLS GIF Spreadsheets are provided in Excel High Price Case Tables (2006-2030) Table Title Formats Summary High Price Case Tables PDF GIF High Price Case Tables XLS GIF Table 1. Total Energy Supply and Disposition Summary XLS GIF Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source XLS GIF Table 3. Energy Prices by Sector and Source XLS GIF Table 4. Residential Sector Key Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 5. Commercial Sector Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 6. Industrial Sector Key Indicators and Consumption XLS GIF Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption XLS GIF Table 8. Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions XLS GIF Table 9. Electricity Generating Capacity

312

Directionally Sensitive Neutron Detector For Homeland Security Applications  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Radiation Portal Monitor SNM Special Nuclear Material US United States vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... of Existing Radiation Portal Monitors............................ 7 II.B. Previous Work in the Field of Directionally Sensitive Detectors ...... 11 III THEORY...

Spence, Grant

2012-02-14T23:59:59.000Z

313

Questions and Answers - How do I read an electron configuration table?  

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

How are electrons placed inshells around the nucleus? How are electrons placed in<br>shells around the nucleus? Previous Question (How are electrons placed in shells around the nucleus?) Questions and Answers Main Index Next Question (What holds an electron around the nucleus?) What holds an electronaround the nucleus? How do I read an electron configuration table? Are you making a model of an atom and need to know how to place the electrons around the nucleus? If so, you will need to know how to read an element's electron configuration table. Follow these easy directions to learn how! What is an electron configuration table? An electron configuration table is a type of code that describes how many electrons are in each energy level of an atom and how the electrons are arranged within each energy level. It packs a lot of information into a

314

Arkansas Water Resources Center  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Keywords --Algal Assay/Nutrients/Heavy Metals/Toxicity #12;TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract. i ListArkansas Water Resources Center ALGAL GROWTH POTENTIALS AND HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS) demonstrated the probable inhibition of algal growth potential by heavy metals in upper Beaver Lake. Upper

Soerens, Thomas

315

Exhibit C Table of Contents  

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

Exhibit C Schedules and Lists Exhibit C Schedules and Lists Dated 5-20-13 Subcontract No. 241314 Page 1 of 5 EXHIBIT "C" SCHEDULES AND LISTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Form Title A Schedule of Quantities and Prices B Milestone and Payment Schedule C Lower-Tier Subcontractor and Vendor List Exhibit C Schedules and Lists Dated 5-20-13 Subcontract No. 241314 Page 2 of 5 EXHIBIT "C" FORM A SCHEDULE OF QUANTITIES AND PRICES NOTE: This Exhibit "C" Form A is part of the model subcontract for Trinity and is provided to Offerors for informational purposes only. It is not intended that this form be returned with the Offeror's proposal. 1.0 WORK TO BE PERFORMED Work shall be performed strictly in accordance with requirements of the Subcontract

316

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2005 Alabama .................................. 255,157 9,748 13,759 37,048 Alaska...................................... 3,089,229 23,700 27,956 105,449 Arkansas.................................. 16,756 177 231 786 California ................................. 226,230 11,101 13,748 45,926 Colorado .................................. 730,948 25,603 34,782 95,881 Florida...................................... 3,584 359 495 1,400 Illinois....................................... 280 37 46 129 Kansas..................................... 476,656 22,165 31,521 85,737 Kentucky.................................. 38,792 1,411 1,716 5,725 Louisiana ................................. 2,527,636 73,035 103,381

317

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 5. Number of Producing Gas Wells by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2006-2010 Alabama .......................................................... 6,227 6,591 6,860 6,913 7,026 Alaska.............................................................. 231 239 261 261 269 Arizona ............................................................ 7 7 6 6 5 Arkansas.......................................................... 3,814 4,773 5,592 6,314 7,397 California ......................................................... 1,451 1,540 1,645 1,643 1,580 Colorado .......................................................... 20,568 22,949 25,716 27,021 28,813 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 2,419 2,552 1,527 1,984 1,852 Illinois...............................................................

318

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas, 2004-2008, and by State, 2008 2004 Total ............................ 15,223,749 -- 5.46 19,517,491 106,521,974 2005 Total ............................ 15,425,867 -- 7.33 18,927,095 138,750,746 2006 Total ............................ 15,981,421 -- 6.39 19,409,674 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ R 16,335,710 -- R 6.25 R 20,196,346 R 126,164,553 2008 Total ............................ 18,424,440 -- 7.96 21,239,516 169,038,089 Alabama ............................... 246,747 2,382,188 9.65 257,884 2,489,704 Alaska................................... 337,359 2,493,128 7.39 398,442 2,944,546 Arizona ................................. 503 3,568 7.09 523 3,710 Arkansas...............................

319

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 21. Number of Natural Gas Industrial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2008-2009 Alabama ...................... 2,476 281 2,757 2,789 271 3,060 Alaska.......................... 2 4 6 2 1 3 Arizona ........................ 285 98 383 274 116 390 Arkansas...................... 648 456 1,104 582 443 1,025 California ..................... 36,124 R 3,467 R 39,591 35,126 3,762 38,888 Colorado ...................... 341 4,475 4,816 297 4,787 5,084 Connecticut.................. 2,386 810 3,196 2,228 910 3,138 Delaware ..................... 96 69 165 39 73 112 Florida.......................... 161 288 449 123 484 607 Georgia........................ 1,003 1,887 2,890 956 1,298 2,254 Hawaii.......................... 27 0 27 25 0 25 Idaho............................ 108 91 199 109 78 187 Illinois...........................

320

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 21. Number of Natural Gas Industrial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2004-2005 Alabama ...................... 2,495 R 304 R 2,799 2,487 299 2,786 Alaska.......................... 6 4 10 7 5 12 Arizona ........................ 328 86 414 319 106 425 Arkansas...................... 782 R 441 R 1,223 671 449 1,120 California ..................... 39,426 2,061 41,487 38,150 2,076 40,226 Colorado ...................... 393 3,782 4,175 364 3,954 4,318 Connecticut.................. 2,625 845 3,470 2,618 819 3,437 Delaware ..................... 134 52 186 124 55 179 Florida.......................... R 174 224 R 398 159 273 432 Georgia........................ R 993 2,168 R 3,161 854 2,599 3,453 Hawaii.......................... 29 0 29 28 0 28 Idaho............................ 117 79 196 116 79 195

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


321

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 5. Number of Wells Producing Gas and Gas Condensate by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2001-2005 Alabama .......................................................... 4,597 4,803 5,157 5,526 5,523 Alaska.............................................................. 170 165 195 224 227 Arizona ............................................................ 8 7 9 6 6 Arkansas.......................................................... 4,825 6,755 7,606 3,460 2,878 California ......................................................... 1,244 1,232 1,249 1,272 1,356 Colorado .......................................................... 22,117 23,554 18,774 16,718 22,691 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 3,271 3,245 3,039 2,781 2,123 Illinois...............................................................

322

EM International Program Action Table  

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

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

323

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2009 Alabama .................................. 248,232 11,667 17,232 42,984 Alaska...................................... 2,830,034 19,542 22,925 86,767 Arkansas.................................. 2,352 125 168 541 California ................................. 198,213 11,042 13,722 45,669 Colorado .................................. 1,233,260 47,705 67,607 174,337 Illinois....................................... 164 24 31 84 Kansas..................................... 370,670 18,863 26,948 72,922 Kentucky.................................. 60,167 2,469 3,270 9,982 Louisiana ................................. 2,175,026 67,067 95,359 250,586 Michigan .................................. 23,819 2,409

324

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2006 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ...................... 0 11 0 0 6,138 6,149 Connecticut.................. 0 91 0 0 0 91 Delaware ..................... 0 * 0 0 0 * Georgia........................ 0 3 0 0 0 3 Hawaii.......................... 2,610 3 0 0 0 2,613 Illinois........................... 0 13 0 0 0 13 Indiana......................... 0 2 0 0 1,640 1,642 Iowa ............................. 0 * 0 0 46 46 Kentucky...................... 0 3 0 0 0 3 Maryland ...................... 0 41 0 0 0 41 Massachusetts............. 0 51 0 0 0 51 Minnesota .................... 0 13 0 0 0 13 Missouri ....................... 0 78 0 0 0 78 Nebraska ..................... 0 19 0 0 0 19 New Hampshire ........... 0 92 0 0 0 92 New Jersey .................. 0 0 0 0 175 175 New York .....................

325

Microsoft Word - table_09.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

20 20 Table 9. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports, 2004-2008 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a .................................................... 3,606,543 3,700,454 3,589,995 3,782,708 3,589,221 Mexico ...................................................... 0 9,320 12,749 54,062 43,314 Total Pipeline Imports............................. 3,606,543 3,709,774 3,602,744 3,836,770 3,632,535 LNG Algeria....................................................... 120,343 97,157 17,449 77,299 0 Australia.................................................... 14,990 0 0 0 0 Egypt......................................................... 0 72,540 119,528 114,580 54,839 Equatorial Guinea .....................................

326

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2007 Alabama .................................. 257,443 13,381 19,831 48,922 Alaska...................................... 2,965,956 22,419 26,332 99,472 Arkansas.................................. 11,532 126 162 552 California ................................. 206,239 11,388 13,521 47,045 Colorado .................................. 888,705 27,447 38,180 102,563 Florida...................................... 2,422 103 132 423 Illinois....................................... 235 38 48 131 Kansas..................................... 391,022 19,600 28,063 74,941 Kentucky.................................. 38,158 1,455 1,957 5,917 Louisiana ................................. 2,857,443 77,905 110,745

327

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C11. Energy Consumption by Source, Ranked by State, 2011 Rank Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum b Retail Electricity Sales State Trillion Btu State Trillion Btu State Trillion Btu State Trillion Btu 1 Texas 1,695.2 Texas 3,756.9 Texas 5,934.3 Texas 1,283.1 2 Indiana 1,333.4 California 2,196.6 California 3,511.4 California 893.7 3 Ohio 1,222.6 Louisiana 1,502.9 Louisiana 1,925.7 Florida 768.0 4 Pennsylvania 1,213.0 New York 1,246.9 Florida 1,680.3 Ohio 528.0 5 Illinois 1,052.2 Florida 1,236.6 New York 1,304.0 Pennsylvania 507.6 6 Kentucky 1,010.6 Pennsylvania 998.6 Pennsylvania 1,255.6 New York 491.5

328

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2008 Alabama .................................. 253,028 11,753 17,222 43,191 Alaska...................................... 2,901,760 20,779 24,337 92,305 Arkansas.................................. 6,531 103 139 446 California ................................. 195,272 11,179 13,972 46,176 Colorado .................................. 1,029,641 37,804 53,590 139,332 Florida...................................... 300 16 22 65 Illinois....................................... 233 33 42 115 Kansas..................................... 397,587 19,856 28,302 76,021 Kentucky.................................. 58,899 1,783 2,401 7,233 Louisiana ................................. 2,208,920 66,369 94,785 245,631

329

Microsoft Word - table_09.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 9. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports, 2002-2006 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a .................................................... 3,784,978 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,700,454 3,589,995 Mexico ...................................................... 1,755 0 0 9,320 12,749 Total Pipeline Imports............................. 3,786,733 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,709,774 3,602,744 LNG Algeria....................................................... 26,584 53,423 120,343 97,157 17,449 Australia.................................................... 0 0 14,990 0 0 Brunei ....................................................... 2,401 0 0 0 0 Egypt.........................................................

330

Microsoft Word - table_09.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 9. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports, 2001-2005 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a .................................................... 3,728,537 3,784,978 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,700,454 Mexico ...................................................... 10,276 1,755 0 0 9,320 Total Pipeline Imports............................. 3,738,814 3,786,733 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,709,774 LNG Algeria....................................................... 64,945 26,584 53,423 120,343 97,157 Australia.................................................... 2,394 0 0 14,990 0 Brunei ....................................................... 0 2,401 0 0 0 Egypt.........................................................

331

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 5. Number of Wells Producing Gas and Gas Condensate by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2002-2006 Alabama .......................................................... 4,803 5,157 5,526 5,523 6,227 Alaska.............................................................. 165 195 224 227 231 Arizona ............................................................ 7 9 6 6 7 Arkansas.......................................................... 6,755 7,606 3,460 R 3,462 3,811 California ......................................................... 1,232 1,249 1,272 1,356 1,451 Colorado .......................................................... 23,554 18,774 16,718 22,691 20,568 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 3,245 3,039 2,781 2,123 1,946 Illinois...............................................................

332

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

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

9 9 Table 21. Number of natural gas commercial consumers by type of service and state, 2011-2012 R Revised data. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition." Please see the cautionary note regarding the number of residential and commercial customers located on the second page of Appendix A of this report. Alabama R 67,561 135 R 67,696 67,099 135 67,234 Alaska R 12,724 303 R 13,027 13,073 61 13,134 Arizona 56,349 198 56,547 56,252 280 56,532 Arkansas 67,454 361 67,815 68,151 614 68,765

333

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 5. Number of Wells Producing by State and the Gulf of Mexico, December 31, 2003-2007 Alabama .......................................................... 5,157 5,526 5,523 6,227 6,591 Alaska.............................................................. 195 224 227 231 239 Arizona ............................................................ 9 6 6 7 7 Arkansas.......................................................... 7,606 3,460 3,462 R 3,814 4,773 California ......................................................... 1,249 1,272 1,356 1,451 1,540 Colorado .......................................................... 18,774 16,718 22,691 20,568 22,949 Gulf of Mexico.................................................. 3,039 2,781 2,123 R 2,419 2,552 Illinois...............................................................

334

Microsoft Word - table_09.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 9. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports, 2003-2007 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a .................................................... 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,700,454 3,589,995 3,782,708 Mexico ...................................................... 0 0 9,320 12,749 54,062 Total Pipeline Imports............................. 3,437,230 3,606,543 3,709,774 3,602,744 3,836,770 LNG Algeria....................................................... 53,423 120,343 97,157 17,449 77,299 Australia.................................................... 0 14,990 0 0 0 Egypt......................................................... 0 0 72,540 119,528 114,580 Equatorial Guinea .....................................

335

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 21. Number of Natural Gas Industrial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2007-2008 Alabama ...................... 2,409 295 2,704 2,476 281 2,757 Alaska.......................... 7 4 11 2 4 6 Arizona ........................ 296 99 395 285 98 383 Arkansas...................... 637 418 1,055 648 456 1,104 California ..................... 35,814 3,320 39,134 36,124 3,533 39,657 Colorado ...................... 298 4,294 4,592 341 4,475 4,816 Connecticut.................. 2,472 845 3,317 2,386 810 3,196 Delaware ..................... 125 60 185 96 69 165 Florida.......................... 156 311 467 161 288 449 Georgia........................ R 1,013 1,900 R 2,913 1,003 1,887 2,890 Hawaii.......................... 27 0 27 27 0 27 Idaho............................ 109 79 188 108 91 199 Illinois...........................

336

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2006 Alabama .................................. 287,278 14,736 21,065 54,529 Alaska...................................... 2,665,742 20,993 24,638 93,346 Arkansas.................................. 13,702 166 212 734 California ................................. 223,580 11,267 14,056 46,641 Colorado .................................. 751,036 26,111 36,317 97,697 Florida...................................... 3,972 357 485 1,416 Illinois....................................... 242 37 47 128 Kansas..................................... 453,111 21,509 30,726 83,137 Kentucky.................................. 39,559 1,666 2,252 6,763 Louisiana ................................. 2,511,802 73,551 105,236

337

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas by State, 2005-2009 2005 Total ............................ 15,425,867 -- 7.33 18,927,095 138,750,746 2006 Total ............................ 15,981,421 -- 6.39 19,409,674 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ 16,335,710 -- 6.25 20,196,346 126,164,553 2008 Total ............................ R 18,305,411 -- R 7.97 R 21,112,053 R 168,342,230 2009 Total ............................ 18,763,726 -- 3.67 21,604,158 79,188,096 Alabama ............................... 225,666 975,789 4.32 236,029 1,020,599 Alaska................................... 397,077 1,163,555 2.93 397,077 1,163,554 Arizona ................................. 695 2,214 3.19 712 2,269 Arkansas............................... 680,613 2,332,956 3.43

338

Microsoft Word - table_21.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 21. Number of natural gas commercial consumers by type of service and state, 2010-2011 R Revised data. Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA), Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition." Please see the cautionary note regarding the number of residential and commercial customers located on the second page of Appendix A of this report. Alabama R 68,017 146 R 68,163 67,522 135 67,657 Alaska 12,673 325 12,998 12,721 303 13,024 Arizona 56,510 166 56,676 56,349 198 56,547 Arkansas 67,676 311 67,987 67,454 361 67,815 California 399,290 40,282

339

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas by State, 2006-2010 2006 Total ............................ 15,981,421 -- 6.39 19,409,674 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ 16,335,710 -- 6.25 20,196,346 126,164,553 2008 Total ............................ 18,305,411 -- 7.97 21,112,053 168,342,230 2009 Total ............................ 18,763,726 -- 3.67 R 21,647,936 R 79,348,561 2010 Total ............................ 19,262,198 -- 4.48 22,402,141 100,272,654 Alabama ............................... 212,769 949,340 4.46 222,932 994,688 Alaska................................... 316,546 1,002,566 3.17 374,226 1,185,249 Arizona ................................. 165 676 4.11 183 753 Arkansas............................... 936,600 3,594,843 3.84

340

Microsoft Word - table_10.doc  

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

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

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


341

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 8. Supplemental Gas Supplies by State, 2005 (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado ...................... 0 2 0 0 5,283 5,285 Connecticut.................. 0 273 0 0 0 273 Delaware ..................... 0 * 0 0 0 * Georgia........................ 0 * 0 0 0 * Hawaii.......................... 2,593 14 0 0 0 2,606 Illinois........................... 0 11 0 4 0 15 Indiana......................... 0 30 0 0 1,958 1,988 Iowa ............................. 0 2 0 30 0 31 Kentucky...................... 0 15 0 0 0 15 Maryland ...................... 0 382 0 0 0 382 Massachusetts............. 0 46 0 0 0 46 Minnesota .................... 0 154 0 0 0 154 Missouri ....................... 0 15 0 0 0 15 Nebraska ..................... 0 16 0 * 0 16 New Hampshire ........... 0 84 0 0 0 84 New Jersey .................. 0 0 0 0 435 435 New York

342

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

17 17 Table C12. Total Energy Consumption, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Energy Consumption per Real Dollar of GDP, Ranked by State, 2011 Rank Total Energy Consumption Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Energy Consumption per Real Dollar of GDP State Trillion Btu State Billion Chained (2005) Dollars State Thousand Btu per Chained (2005) Dollar 1 Texas 12,206.6 California 1,735.4 Louisiana 19.7 2 California 7,858.4 Texas 1,149.9 Wyoming 17.5 3 Florida 4,217.1 New York 1,016.4 North Dakota 15.4 4 Louisiana 4,055.3 Florida 661.1 Alaska 14.3 5 Illinois 3,977.8 Illinois 582.1 Mississippi 13.8 6 Ohio 3,827.6 Pennsylvania 500.4 Kentucky 13.5

343

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas, 2003-2007, and by State, 2007 2003 Total ............................ 14,589,545 -- 4.88 19,974,360 97,555,375 2004 Total ............................ 15,223,749 -- 5.46 19,517,491 106,521,974 2005 Total ............................ 15,425,867 -- 7.33 18,927,095 138,750,746 2006 Total ............................ R 15,981,421 -- R 6.39 R 19,409,674 R 124,074,399 2007 Total ............................ 16,031,199 -- 6.37 20,019,321 127,530,680 Alabama ............................... 259,062 1,926,374 7.44 270,407 2,010,736 Alaska................................... 368,344 2,072,647 5.63 433,485 2,439,193 Arizona ................................. 634 3,791 5.98 655 3,913 Arkansas...............................

344

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 7. Natural Gas Processed, Liquids Extracted, and Estimated Extraction Loss by State, 2010 Alabama .................................. 242,444 13,065 19,059 47,741 Alaska...................................... 2,731,803 17,798 20,835 79,355 Arkansas.................................. 9,599 160 213 692 California ................................. 204,327 10,400 13,244 42,509 Colorado .................................. 1,434,003 57,924 82,637 209,191 Kansas..................................... 341,778 18,424 26,251 70,425 Kentucky.................................. 66,579 3,317 4,576 13,311 Louisiana ................................. 2,207,760 71,231 102,448 262,178 Michigan .................................. 23,449 2,207 2,943 8,272 Mississippi ...............................

345

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

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

7 7 Table 7. Supplemental gas supplies by state, 2012 (million cubic feet) Colorado 0 99 0 4,313 4,412 Georgia 0 0 660 0 660 Hawaii 2,491 20 0 0 2,510 Illinois 0 1 0 0 1 Indiana 0 1 0 0 1 Kentucky 0 1 0 0 1 Louisiana 0 0 553 0 553 Maryland 0 116 0 0 116 Minnesota 0 9 0 0 9 Missouri * 0 0 0 * Nebraska 0 4 0 0 4 New Jersey 0 0 0 139 139 North Dakota 52,541 0 0 0 52,541 Ohio 0 6 360 0 366 Pennsylvania 0 2 0 0 2 Vermont 0 3 0 0 3 Virginia 0 48 0 0 48 Total 55,032 309 1,573 4,452 61,366 State Synthetic Natural Gas Propane-Air Biomass Gas Other Total * Volume is less than 500,000 cubic feet.

346

All Price Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4) 4) June 2007 State Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates 1970 Through 2004 2004 Price and Expenditure Summary Tables Table S1a. Energy Price Estimates by Source, 2004 (Nominal Dollars per Million Btu) State Primary Energy Electric Power Sector d,e Retail Electricity Total Energy d,f Coal Natural Gas Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass c Total d,e,f Distillate Fuel Jet Fuel LPG a Motor Gasoline Residual Fuel Other b Total Alabama 1.57 7.72 11.91 8.82 15.78 13.68 4.78 8.25 12.28 0.43 1.81 5.32 1.68 18.01 11.29 Alaska 1.91 3.59 12.43 9.61 19.64 15.55 3.63 12.09 11.05 - 6.68 9.07 3.18 32.29 11.09 Arizona 1.31 6.84 13.59 9.53 18.40 15.33 5.29 7.23 13.92 0.45 5.90 6.68 2.18 21.83 15.24 Arkansas 1.25 8.09 12.01 8.30 14.80 13.97 4.67 11.02 12.77 0.49 1.79 6.59 1.43 16.76 11.89 California 1.82 7.63 13.58

347

All Price Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7) 7) August 2009 State Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates 1970 Through 2007 2007 Price and Expenditure Summary Tables Table S1a. Energy Price Estimates by Source, 2007 (Nominal Dollars per Million Btu) State Primary Energy Electric Power Sector e,f Retail Electricity Total Energy e,g Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Fuel Biomass Total e,f,g Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel LPG b Motor Gasoline Residual Fuel Oil Other c Total Wood and Waste d Alabama 2.17 9.06 19.43 16.20 21.84 21.26 8.46 14.19 19.62 0.42 2.71 7.47 2.29 22.46 16.01 Alaska 2.34 5.76 19.43 16.35 28.63 22.14 11.51 23.69 17.97 - 10.51 14.88 4.94 38.96 17.87 Arizona 1.61 8.44 19.84 16.24 27.16 21.95 10.04 11.27 20.50 0.57 10.86 9.61 2.78 25.02 20.72 Arkansas 1.65 9.33 19.63 15.73 21.10 21.54 8.65 18.76 20.42 0.57 2.66 9.45 1.98 20.57

348

Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook  

Reports and Publications (EIA)

The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the AEO using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO projections.

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

349

Tables in Context: Integrating Horizontal Displays with  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

design challenges for tabletop interfaces: integrating access to public and private information, managing a cooperative gesture to organize digital documents on an interactive table. Our tabletop interface designTables in Context: Integrating Horizontal Displays with Ubicomp Environments Abstract Our work

Klemmer, Scott

350

Tafel Musik: Formatting algorithm of tables  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper provides a description on the formatting algorithm of tables that the authors have developed. This algorithm is an important component of the so called TafeMusik (Tafel Musik) environment. TafeMusikprovides the user with an environment to ... Keywords: First-fit algorithm, Linear programming, Optimization, Tables, Tabular formatting, Tabular layout

K. -H. Shin; K. Kobayashi; A. Suzuki

1997-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

351

Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Supplement Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Regional Energy Consumption and Prices by Sector Energy Consumption by Sector Table 1. New England Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 2. Middle Atlantic Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 3. East North Central Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 4. West North Central Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table 5. South Atlantic Consumption & Prices by Sector & Census Division. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

352

Water Bugs  

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

Bugs Bugs Nature Bulletin No. 221-A March 12, 1966 Forest Preserve District of Cook County Seymour Simon, President Roland F. Eisenbeis, Supt. of Conservation WATER BUGS It is fascinating to lie in a boat or on a log at the edge of the water and watch the drama that unfolds among the small water animals. Among the star performers in small streams and ponds are the Water Bugs. These are aquatic members of that large group of insects called the "true bugs", most of which live on land. Moreover, unlike many other types of water insects, they do not have gills but get their oxygen directly from the air. Those that do go beneath the surface usually carry an oxygen supply with them in the form of a shiny glistening sheath of air imprisoned among a covering of fine waterproof hairs. The common water insect known to small boys at the "Whirligig Bug" is not a water bug but a beetle.

353

Engineering and economic evaluation of direct hot-water geothermal energy applications on the University of New Mexico campus. Final technical report  

SciTech Connect

The potential engineering and economic feasibility of low-temperature geothermal energy applications on the campus of the University of New Mexico is studied in detail. This report includes three phases of work: data acquisition and evaluation, system synthesis, and system refinement and implementation. Detailed process designs are presented for a system using 190/sup 0/F geothermal water to substitute for the use of 135 x 10/sup 9/ Btu/y (141 TJ/y) of fossil fuels to provide space and domestic hot water heating for approximately 23% of the campus. Specific areas covered in the report include economic evaluation, environmental impact and program implementation plans.

Kauffman, D.; Houghton, A.V.

1980-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

354

La Thuile 2014: Theoretical premises to neutrino round table  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

This talk, dedicated to the memory of G. Giacomelli, introduced the round table on neutrinos held in February 2014. The topics selected for the discussion are: 1) the neutrinoless double beta decay rate (interpretation in terms of light neutrinos, nuclear uncertainties); 2) the physics in the gigantic water Cherenkov detectors (proton decay, atmospheric neutrinos); 3) the study of neutrino oscillations (mass hierarchy and CP violation; other neutrino states); 4) the neutrino astronomy at low and high energies (solar, supernova, cosmic neutrinos). The importance of an active interplay between theory and experiment is highlighted.

Francesco Vissani

2014-05-25T23:59:59.000Z

355

La Thuile 2014: Theoretical premises to neutrino round table  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

This talk, dedicated to the memory of G. Giacomelli, introduced the round table on neutrinos held in February 2014. The topics selected for the discussion are: 1) the neutrinoless double beta decay rate (interpretation in terms of light neutrinos, nuclear uncertainties); 2) the physics in the gigantic water Cherenkov detectors (proton decay, atmospheric neutrinos); 3) the study of neutrino oscillations (mass hierarchy and CP violation; other neutrino states); 4) the neutrino astronomy at low and high energies (solar, supernova, cosmic neutrinos). The importance of an active interplay between theory and experiment is highlighted.

Vissani, Francesco

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

356

High-resolution subsurface water-ice distributions on Mars  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

... Theoretical models indicate that water ice is stable in the shallow subsurface (depths of water-ice table that steadily increases in depth with decreasing latitude. More detailed modelling has ...

Joshua L. Bandfield

2007-05-03T23:59:59.000Z

357

NREL: Learning - Geothermal Direct Use  

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

Direct Use Direct Use Photo of alligators on a farm. Geothermally heated waters allow alligators to thrive on a farm in Colorado, where temperatures can drop below freezing. Geothermal reservoirs of hot water, which are found a few miles or more beneath the Earth's surface, can be used to provide heat directly. This is called the direct use of geothermal energy. Geothermal direct use has a long history, going back to when people began using hot springs for bathing, cooking food, and loosening feathers and skin from game. Today, hot springs are still used as spas. But there are now more sophisticated ways of using this geothermal resource. In modern direct-use systems, a well is drilled into a geothermal reservoir to provide a steady stream of hot water. The water is brought up through

358

Direct measurement of the energy thresholds to conformational isomerization. II. 3-indole-propionic acid and its water-containing complex  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

-propionic acid IPA and its water-containing complex. By contrast with tryptamine Paper I , IPA has only two energies of the A and B minima, with E B -E A =46­210 cm-1 . Like the IPA monomer, the IPA-H2O complex.D. thesis, UCLA, 1991 have determined that these complexes retain the same IPA conformational structure

Zwier, Timothy S.

359

1999 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey Detailed Tables  

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

Consumption and Expenditures Tables Table C1. Total Energy Consumption by Major Fuel ............................................... 124 Table C2. Total Energy Expenditures by Major Fuel................................................ 130 Table C3. Consumption for Sum of Major Fuels ...................................................... 135 Table C4. Expenditures for Sum of Major Fuels....................................................... 140 Table C5. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by Census Region for Sum of Major Fuels................................................................................................... 145 Table C6. Expenditures by Census Region for Sum of Major Fuels......................... 150 Table C7. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity by Building Size for Sum of

360

T-583: Linux Kernel OSF Partition Table Buffer Overflow Lets...  

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

3: Linux Kernel OSF Partition Table Buffer Overflow Lets Local Users Obtain Information T-583: Linux Kernel OSF Partition Table Buffer Overflow Lets Local Users Obtain Information...

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


361

Table 4-3 Site Wide Environmental Management Matrix  

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

Table 4-3. Site-Wide Environmental Management Matrix National Renewable Energy Laboratory's South Table Mountain Complex FINAL POTENTIAL ISSUES PROGRAM OF IMPROVEMENTS Off- Site...

362

Water Use Reduction | Department of Energy  

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

Reduction Water Use Reduction Water Use Reduction The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) provides agencies with guidance and direction on how to reduce water use and increase...

363

CSMRI Site Remediation Quality Assurance Project Plan March 30, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

..........................................................................................................................................5 9.0 Ground- and Surface-Water MonitoringCSMRI Site Remediation Quality Assurance Project Plan March 30, 2004 TASK PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .............................................................................................5 FIGURES #12;CSMRI Site Remediation Task Plan March 31, 2004 TASK PLAN CSMRI SITE REMEDIATION 1

364

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

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

7 7 Created on: 12/12/2013 2:04:58 PM Table 3. Selected national average natural gas prices, 2008-2013 (dollars per thousand cubic feet, except where noted) Year and Month NGL Composite Spot Price a Natural Gas Spot Price b Citygate Price Delivered to Consumers Electric Power Price d Residential Commercial Industrial Price % of Total c Price % of Total c Price % of Total c 2008 Annual Average 15.20 8.86 9.18 13.89 97.5 12.23 79.7 9.65 20.4 9.26 2009 Annual Average 8.99 5.24 6.48 12.14 97.4 10.06 77.8 5.33 18.8 4.93 2010 Annual Average 11.83 4.37 6.18 11.39 97.4 9.47 77.5 5.49 18.0 5.27 2011 January 13.03 4.49 5.69 9.90 96.5 R 8.74 72.8 R 5.66 R 16.8 5.66 February 13.64 4.09 5.75 10.14 96.5 8.88 72.0 R 5.77 R 16.6

365

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

366

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

367

Microsoft Word - table_05.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

368

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

369

Microsoft Word - table_26.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

370

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

371

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

372

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 11. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Exports By Point of Exit, 2005-2009 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet, Prices in Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Pipeline (Canada) Calais, ME .......................... 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 2,131 5.62 Detroit, MI ........................... 40,255 8.12 22,156 7.61 22,904 6.88 27,220 8.37 43,980 4.01 Eastport, ID......................... 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 252 7.43 113 4.49 Marysville, MI...................... 5,222 7.92 3,483 7.36 9,158 7.77 8,756 7.48 14,925 4.85 Sault Ste. Marie, MI ............ 5,537 8.13 5,070 8.11 4,389 7.13 3,122 8.75 2,044 5.04 St. Clair, MI ......................... 286,804 7.77 286,582 7.39 418,765 7.24 R 492,235 R 8.96 612,369 4.62 Noyes, MN .......................... 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Babb, MT ............................

373

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 22. Average City Gate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2003-2007 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 6.06 6.65 8.47 10.26 8.78 Alaska................................... 2.33 3.05 3.74 5.25 6.75 Arizona ................................. 4.87 5.63 7.32 7.67 8.25 Arkansas............................... 6.07 7.12 8.83 7.96 8.55 California .............................. 5.16 6.04 7.88 6.76 6.82 Colorado ............................... 4.11 5.02 6.10 7.61 6.23 Connecticut........................... 5.59 7.56 9.74 9.11 8.67 Delaware .............................. 5.88 6.13 8.32 8.84 7.58 Florida................................... 5.87 6.60 9.30 8.32 7.97 Georgia................................. 6.25 6.81 9.85 9.37 8.15

374

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

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

4 4 Table 14. Underground natural gas storage capacity by state, December 31, 2012 (million cubic feet) Alabama 1 16,150 21,900 0 0 0 1 11,200 13,500 2 27,350 35,400 Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12,178 21,853 2 12,178 21,853 California 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 349,296 592,411 14 349,296 592,411 Colorado 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 60,582 124,253 10 60,582 124,253 Illinois 0 0 0 17 215,594 779,862 11 87,368 220,070 28 302,962 999,931 Indiana 0 0 0 12 19,215 80,746 10 13,809 30,003 22 33,024 110,749 Iowa 0 0 0 4 90,313 288,210 0 0 0 4 90,313 288,210 Kansas 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 122,968 283,974 19 123,343 284,905 Kentucky 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 100,971 212,184 23 107,600 221,751 Louisiana 11 200,702 297,020 0 0 0 7 211,780 402,626 18 412,482

375

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 18. Natural Gas Delivered to Industrial Consumers for the Account of Others by State, 2005-2009 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 115,449 76.4 114,699 76.5 114,325 76.0 103,662 72.8 94,597 72.1 Alaska................................... 16,582 31.4 11,619 36.9 5,934 30.0 1,304 21.8 1,827 27.5 Arizona ................................. 9,569 56.4 11,457 62.1 13,292 68.7 14,200 70.4 12,730 70.9 Arkansas............................... 84,177 94.8 83,347 95.2 82,213 95.8 81,841 96.1 74,752 96.4 California .............................. 738,704 94.5 690,491 94.3 699,283 94.7 R 683,512 R 94.9 673,034 95.3 Colorado ............................... 125,618 99.4 110,565 99.4 116,699 99.5 119,032 99.4 112,995 99.5 Connecticut...........................

376

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2006 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 1 8,300 0 0 1 11,000 2 19,300 0.23 Arkansas............................... 0 0 0 0 2 22,000 2 22,000 0.26 California .............................. 0 0 0 0 12 484,711 12 484,711 5.82 Colorado ............................... 0 0 0 0 8 98,068 8 98,068 1.18 Illinois.................................... 0 0 18 881,037 11 103,731 29 984,768 11.82 Indiana.................................. 0 0 12 81,490 10 32,804 22 114,294 1.37 Iowa ...................................... 0 0 4 275,200 0 0 4 275,200 3.30 Kansas.................................. 1 1,088 0 0 18 287,295 19 288,383 3.46 Kentucky............................... 0 0 3 9,567 20 208,827 23 218,394

377

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2002-2006 (Million Cubic Feet) 2002 Total ................ 485,126 211,778 696,905 3,722,249 893,193 4,615,443 5,312,348 Alabama.................. 202,002 0 202,002 NA NA NA 202,002 Alaska..................... 102,972 190,608 293,580 0 0 0 293,580 California................. 0 7,068 7,068 3,080 64,735 67,816 74,884 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 3,719,169 828,458 4,547,627 4,547,627 Louisiana ................ 125,481 11,711 137,192 NA NA NA 137,192 Texas...................... 54,672 2,391 57,063 NA NA NA 57,063 2003 Total ................ 456,090 254,150 710,240 3,565,614 939,828 4,505,443 5,215,683 Alabama.................. 194,339 0 194,339 NA NA NA 194,339 Alaska..................... 85,606 236,404 322,010

378

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 11. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Exports By Point of Exit, 2004-2008 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet, Prices in Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Pipeline (Canada) Eastport, ID......................... 48 5.36 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 252 7.43 Detroit, MI ........................... 40,030 6.47 40,255 8.12 22,156 7.61 22,904 6.88 27,220 8.37 Marysville, MI...................... 4,455 6.83 5,222 7.92 3,483 7.36 9,158 7.77 8,756 7.48 Sault Ste. Marie, MI ............ 6,666 6.38 5,537 8.13 5,070 8.11 4,389 7.13 3,122 8.75 St. Clair, MI ......................... 317,797 6.56 286,804 7.77 286,582 7.39 418,765 7.24 524,065 8.98 Noyes, MN .......................... 2,193 5.77 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Babb, MT ............................ 1,429 4.98 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Havre, MT ...........................

379

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 22. Average City Gate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2004-2008 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 6.65 8.47 10.26 8.78 9.84 Alaska................................... 3.05 3.74 5.25 6.75 6.74 Arizona ................................. 5.63 7.32 7.67 8.25 8.49 Arkansas............................... 7.12 8.83 7.96 8.55 8.88 California .............................. 6.04 7.88 6.76 6.82 8.11 Colorado ............................... 5.02 6.10 7.61 6.23 6.98 Connecticut........................... 7.56 9.74 9.11 8.67 10.24 Delaware .............................. 6.13 8.32 8.84 7.58 8.32 Florida................................... 6.60 9.30 8.32 7.97 9.73 Georgia................................. 6.81 9.85 9.37 8.15 9.35

380

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 8. Summary of U.S. natural gas imports, 2007-2011 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a 3,782,708 3,589,089 3,271,107 3,279,752 3,117,081 Mexico 54,062 43,314 28,296 29,995 2,672 Total Pipeline Imports 3,836,770 3,632,403 3,299,402 3,309,747 3,119,753 LNG Algeria 77,299 0 0 0 0 Egypt 114,580 54,839 160,435 72,990 35,120 Equatorial Guinea 17,795 0 0 0 0 Nigeria 95,028 12,049 13,306 41,733 2,362 Norway 0 14,882 29,327 26,014 15,175 Peru 0 0 0 16,045 16,620 Qatar 18,352 3,108 12,687 45,583 90,972 Trinidad/Tobago 447,758 266,821 236,202 189,748 128,620 Yemen 0 0 0 38,897 60,071 Total LNG Imports 770,812 351,698

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


381

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2007 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 18.13 100.00 15.07 79.82 8.70 24.02 -- 7.19 Alaska................................... 8.68 100.00 7.57 76.01 4.67 69.96 -- 3.58 Arizona ................................. 17.21 100.00 12.84 93.36 10.49 31.33 9.40 6.84 Arkansas............................... 13.08 100.00 10.07 70.38 9.51 4.15 8.39 7.04 California .............................. 11.57 99.50 10.20 60.63 9.07 5.31 7.71 6.72 Colorado ............................... 8.84 100.00 8.10 95.70 7.21 0.45 8.72 4.35 Connecticut........................... 16.39 98.20 12.61 71.49 10.54 50.04 20.57 7.81 Delaware .............................. 16.21 100.00 14.48

382

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 13. Additions to and Withdrawals from Gas Storage by State, 2005 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ................... 15,572 15,356 216 493 606 -114 103 Alaska....................... 0 0 0 738 738 0 0 Arkansas................... 4,394 4,707 -313 72 51 20 -293 California .................. 190,055 179,359 10,696 82 50 31 10,727 Colorado ................... 38,588 39,442 -854 0 0 0 -854 Connecticut............... 0 0 0 1,383 682 701 701 Delaware .................. 0 0 0 138 145 -7 -7 Georgia..................... 0 0 0 4,179 2,660 1,520 1,520 Idaho......................... 0 0 0 46 189 -143 -143 Illinois........................ 260,515 259,288 1,226 3 405 -402 824 Indiana...................... 21,405 22,827 -1,422 831 1,066 -236 -1,658 Iowa .......................... 66,827 70,206 -3,379 2,626 2,845 -219

383

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2005-2009 (Million Cubic Feet) 2005 Total ................ 363,652 321,019 684,671 2,474,076 730,830 3,204,906 3,889,577 Alabama.................. 152,902 0 152,902 NA NA NA 152,902 Alaska..................... 74,928 305,641 380,568 0 0 0 380,568 California................. 0 6,685 6,685 684 53,404 54,088 60,773 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 2,473,392 677,426 3,150,818 3,150,818 Louisiana ................ 99,290 8,294 107,584 NA NA NA 107,584 Texas...................... 36,532 400 36,932 NA NA NA 36,932 2006 Total ................ 321,261 308,391 629,652 2,272,669 681,869 2,954,538 3,584,190 Alabama.................. 145,762 0 145,762 NA NA NA 145,762 Alaska..................... 62,156 292,660 354,816

384

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 20. Number of natural gas residential consumers by type of service and state, 2011-2012 Alabama R 772,892 0 R 772,892 767,412 0 767,412 Alaska 121,736 0 121,736 122,983 0 122,983 Arizona 1,146,280 6 1,146,286 1,157,682 6 1,157,688 Arkansas 551,795 0 551,795 549,959 0 549,959 California R 10,545,585 R 79,605 10,625,190 10,547,706 134,210 10,681,916 Colorado 1,645,711 5 1,645,716 1,659,803 5 1,659,808 Connecticut 494,065 905 494,970 503,241 897 504,138 Delaware 152,005 0 152,005 153,307 0 153,307 District of Columbia 130,888 14,636 145,524 129,674 16,264 145,938 Florida 664,564 R 14,635 R 679,199 672,160 14,861 687,021 Georgia 321,515 1,418,491 1,740,006 319,179 1,420,364 1,739,543 Hawaii 25,305 0 25,305

385

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 11. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Exports By Point of Exit, 2003-2007 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet, Prices in Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Pipeline (Canada) Eastport, ID......................... 15 4.34 48 5.36 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Detroit, MI ........................... 19,737 5.47 40,030 6.47 40,255 8.12 22,156 7.61 22,904 6.88 Marysville, MI...................... 811 5.06 4,455 6.83 5,222 7.92 3,483 7.36 9,158 7.77 Sault Ste. Marie, MI ............ 605 4.94 6,666 6.38 5,537 8.13 5,070 8.11 4,389 7.13 St. Clair, MI ......................... 238,444 6.13 317,797 6.56 286,804 7.77 286,582 7.39 418,765 7.24 Noyes, MN .......................... 172 5.43 2,193 5.77 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Babb, MT ............................ 38 6.48 1,429 4.98 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- Havre, MT ...........................

386

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2006-2010 (Million Cubic Feet) 2006 Total ................ 321,261 308,391 629,652 2,272,669 681,869 2,954,538 3,584,190 Alabama.................. 145,762 0 145,762 NA NA NA 145,762 Alaska..................... 62,156 292,660 354,816 0 0 0 354,816 California................. 156 6,654 6,809 2,094 38,313 40,407 47,217 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 2,270,575 643,556 2,914,131 2,914,131 Louisiana ................ 88,657 8,822 97,479 NA NA NA 97,479 Texas...................... 24,529 255 24,785 NA NA NA 24,785 2007 Total ................ 276,117 341,925 618,042 2,204,379 654,334 2,858,713 3,476,755 Alabama.................. 134,451 0 134,451 NA NA NA 134,451 Alaska..................... 48,876 325,328 374,204

387

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 3. Gross withdrawals and marketed production of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2008-2012 (million cubic feet) 2008 Total 15,134,644 5,609,425 2,022,228 2,869,960 25,636,257 3,638,622 166,909 718,674 21,112,053 953,451 20,158,602 2009 Total 14,414,287 5,674,120 2,010,171 3,958,315 26,056,893 3,522,090 165,360 721,507 21,647,936 1,024,082 20,623,854 2010 Total 13,247,498 5,834,703 1,916,762 5,817,122 26,816,085 3,431,587 165,928 836,698 22,381,873 1,066,366 21,315,507 2011 Total 12,291,070 5,907,919 1,779,055 8,500,983 28,479,026 3,365,313 209,439 867,922 24,036,352 1,134,473 22,901,879 2012 Total 12,736,678 4,969,668 1,539,395 10,296,572 29,542,313 3,259,680 212,848 761,836 25,307,949 1,250,340 24,057,609

388

Microsoft Word - table_07.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Created on: 1/7/2014 9:25:31 AM Table 7. Marketed production of natural gas in selected states and the Federal Gulf of Mexico, 2008-2013 (million cubic feet) Year and Month Alaska Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Texas Wyoming Other a States Federal Gulf of Mexico U.S. Total 2008 Total 398,442 1,377,969 1,446,204 1,886,710 6,960,693 2,274,850 4,452,843 2,314,342 21,112,053 2009 Total 397,077 1,548,607 1,383,004 1,901,556 6,818,973 2,335,328 4,834,474 2,428,916 21,647,936 2010 Total 374,226 2,210,099 1,292,185 1,827,328 6,715,294 2,305,525 5,412,154 2,245,062 22,381,873 2011 January 31,027 224,410 100,352 154,940 588,714 178,331 496,362 178,597 1,952,732 February 31,076 208,495 88,553

389

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2007 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 1 8,300 0 0 1 11,000 2 19,300 0.23 Arkansas............................... 0 0 0 0 2 22,000 2 22,000 0.26 California .............................. 0 0 0 0 12 487,711 12 487,711 5.80 Colorado ............................... 0 0 0 0 8 98,068 8 98,068 1.17 Illinois.................................... 0 0 18 876,960 11 103,731 29 980,691 11.67 Indiana.................................. 0 0 12 81,490 10 32,804 22 114,294 1.36 Iowa ...................................... 0 0 4 278,238 0 0 4 278,238 3.31 Kansas.................................. 1 931 0 0 18 287,996 19 288,926 3.44 Kentucky............................... 0 0 3 9,567 20 210,792 23 220,359

390

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 3. Gross Withdrawals and Marketed Production of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2004-2008 (Million Cubic Feet) 2004 Total ............. 17,885,247 6,084,431 NA 23,969,678 3,701,656 96,408 654,124 19,517,491 926,600 18,590,891 2005 Total ............. 17,471,847 5,984,975 NA 23,456,822 3,699,535 119,097 711,095 18,927,095 876,497 18,050,598 2006 Total ............. 17,995,554 5,539,464 NA 23,535,018 3,264,929 129,469 730,946 19,409,674 906,069 18,503,605 2007 Total ............. 17,065,375 R 5,818,405 1,779,875 R 24,663,656 R 3,662,685 R 143,457 R 661,168 R 20,196,346 930,320 R 19,266,026 2008 Total ............. 18,011,151 5,844,798 1,898,399 25,754,348 3,638,563 166,588 709,681 21,239,516 953,451 20,286,065 Alabama Total ...... 159,912 6,368 111,273 277,553 475 1,801 17,394

391

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2004-2008 (Million Cubic Feet) 2004 Total ................ 401,662 279,249 680,911 3,214,488 840,852 4,055,340 4,736,252 Alabama.................. 165,630 0 165,630 NA NA NA 165,630 Alaska..................... 73,457 260,667 334,125 0 0 0 334,125 California................. 0 6,966 6,966 850 53,805 54,655 61,622 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 3,213,638 787,047 4,000,685 4,000,685 Louisiana ................ 117,946 11,299 129,245 NA NA NA 129,245 Texas...................... 44,630 316 44,946 NA NA NA 44,946 2005 Total ................ 363,652 321,019 684,671 2,474,076 730,830 3,204,906 3,889,577 Alabama.................. 152,902 0 152,902 NA NA NA 152,902 Alaska..................... 74,928 305,641 380,568

392

Microsoft Word - table_02.doc  

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

5 5 Created on: 12/12/2013 1:57:32 PM Table 2. Natural gas consumption in the United States, 2008-2013 (billion cubic feet) Delivered to Consumers Year and Month Lease and Plant Fuel a Pipeline and Distribution Use b Residential Commercial Industrial Electric Power Vehicle Fuel Total Total Consumption 2008 Total 1,220 648 4,892 3,153 6,670 6,668 26 21,409 23,277 2009 Total 1,275 670 4,779 3,119 6,167 6,873 27 20,965 22,910 2010 Total 1,286 674 4,782 3,103 6,826 7,387 29 22,127 24,087 2011 January 107 R 83 970 528 R 659 540 3 R 2,699 R 2,889 February 97 70 R 768 432 R 600 484 2 R 2,285 R 2,452 March 111 63 R 595 R 361 R 616 482 3 R 2,056 R 2,230 April 109 51 R 341 R 232 R 569 521 R 2 R 1,665 R 1,825 May 112 46 R 205 R 166 R

393

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2008 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............. 1 11,900 15,900 0 0 0 1 9,000 11,000 2 20,900 26,900 Arkansas............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14,500 22,000 2 14,500 22,000 California ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 283,796 498,705 12 283,796 498,705 Colorado ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 42,579 95,068 8 42,579 95,068 Illinois.................. 0 0 0 18 244,900 874,384 10 51,418 103,606 28 296,318 977,989 Indiana................ 0 0 0 12 19,978 81,991 10 12,791 32,946 22 32,769 114,937 Iowa .................... 0 0 0 4 87,350 284,747 0 0 0 4 87,350 284,747 Kansas................ 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 118,885 281,291 19 119,260 282,221 Kentucky............. 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 94,598 210,792 23 101,227 220,359 Louisiana ............

394

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 13. Additions to and Withdrawals from Gas Storage by State, 2006 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ................... 20,604 12,127 8,477 704 698 7 8,484 Arkansas................... 4,789 4,081 707 45 57 -12 695 California .................. 168,957 182,247 -13,290 92 76 16 -13,274 Colorado ................... 35,836 38,506 -2,670 0 0 0 -2,670 Connecticut............... 0 0 0 532 246 286 286 Delaware .................. 0 0 0 68 68 * * Georgia..................... 0 0 0 7,705 1,963 5,742 5,742 Idaho......................... 0 0 0 415 275 140 140 Illinois........................ 242,754 235,590 7,163 238 358 -119 7,044 Indiana...................... 23,598 20,707 2,891 1,447 1,172 275 3,165 Iowa .......................... 68,750 65,187 3,563 2,438 1,540 899 4,462 Kansas...................... 103,105 99,698 3,407

395

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2001-2005 (Million Cubic Feet) 2001 Total ................ 508,374 170,206 678,580 4,146,993 989,969 5,136,962 5,815,542 Alabama.................. 200,862 0 200,862 NA NA NA 200,862 Alaska..................... 113,870 149,067 262,937 0 0 0 262,937 California................. 0 7,262 7,262 3,913 67,034 70,947 78,209 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 4,143,080 922,935 5,066,015 5,066,015 Louisiana ................ 140,358 13,513 153,871 NA NA NA 153,871 Texas...................... 53,285 364 53,649 NA NA NA 53,649 2002 Total ................ 485,126 211,778 696,905 3,722,249 893,193 4,615,443 5,312,348 Alabama.................. 202,002 0 202,002 NA NA NA 202,002 Alaska..................... 102,972 190,608 293,580

396

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 25. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential and Commercial Sector Consumers by Local Distribution and Marketers in Selected States, 2009-2010 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Florida................................... 20.22 R 18.41 20.18 97.7 17.85 19.44 17.89 97.9 Georgia................................. 13.20 16.81 16.30 14.1 12.18 15.67 15.17 14.3 Maryland ............................... 13.09 R 16.80 13.73 82.8 12.20 13.51 12.44 81.7 New Jersey ........................... 14.49 R 16.52 14.54 97.7 12.77 14.87 12.84 96.6 New York .............................. 14.96 R 15.38 15.05 77.1 13.87 14.55 14.04 74.6 Ohio ...................................... 11.64 13.64 12.68 47.8 10.28 11.80 11.13 43.7 Pennsylvania ........................ 14.56 R 16.46 14.74 90.9

397

Microsoft Word - table_22.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

3 3 Table 22. Average City Gate Price of Natural Gas in the United States, 2002-2006 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 4.74 6.06 6.65 8.47 10.26 Alaska................................... 2.36 2.33 3.05 3.74 5.25 Arizona ................................. 3.77 4.87 5.63 7.32 7.67 Arkansas............................... 5.17 6.07 7.12 8.83 7.96 California .............................. 3.20 5.16 6.04 7.88 6.76 Colorado ............................... 2.72 4.11 5.02 6.10 7.61 Connecticut........................... 6.42 5.59 7.56 R 9.74 9.11 Delaware .............................. 5.37 5.88 6.13 8.32 8.84 Florida................................... 3.90 5.87 6.60 9.30 8.32 Georgia................................. 4.55 6.25 6.81 9.85 9.37 Hawaii...................................

398

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 Table 20. Number of Natural Gas Residential Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2009-2010 Alabama ...................... R 785,005 0 R 785,005 768,921 0 768,921 Alaska.......................... 120,124 0 120,124 121,166 0 121,166 Arizona ........................ 1,130,047 0 1,130,047 1,138,448 0 1,138,448 Arkansas...................... 557,355 0 557,355 549,970 0 549,970 California ..................... R 10,454,747 R 56,203 R 10,510,950 10,469,734 72,850 10,542,584 Colorado ...................... 1,622,429 5 1,622,434 1,634,582 5 1,634,587 Connecticut.................. 488,614 735 489,349 489,380 805 490,185 Delaware ..................... 149,006 0 149,006 150,458 0 150,458 District of Columbia...... 129,738 13,698 143,436 130,048 14,103 144,151 Florida.......................... 659,725 14,365

399

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 20. Number of Natural Gas Commercial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2008-2009 Alabama ...................... R 65,193 120 R 65,313 67,468 128 67,596 Alaska.......................... 12,267 497 12,764 12,854 363 13,217 Arizona ........................ 57,481 105 57,586 57,022 169 57,191 Arkansas...................... 68,943 201 69,144 68,794 249 69,043 California ..................... 417,531 29,629 447,160 406,270 35,225 441,495 Colorado ...................... 144,543 176 144,719 145,455 169 145,624 Connecticut.................. 50,023 3,880 53,903 50,106 4,404 54,510 Delaware ..................... 12,619 84 12,703 12,726 113 12,839 District of Columbia...... 6,838 3,186 10,024 6,706 3,582 10,288 Florida.......................... 41,164 16,961 58,125 41,748 17,801 59,549

400

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2009 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 18.12 100.0 14.93 78.7 6.48 27.9 19.17 4.30 Alaska................................... 10.23 100.0 9.51 85.3 4.02 72.5 -- W Arizona ................................. 17.65 100.0 12.15 88.0 8.19 29.1 14.96 4.16 Arkansas............................... 13.39 100.0 10.71 59.4 8.47 3.6 -- 4.14 California .............................. 9.43 98.9 7.75 54.9 6.57 4.7 7.61 4.44 Colorado ............................... 8.80 100.0 7.56 94.8 6.57 0.5 9.12 4.27 Connecticut........................... 14.81 97.5 9.92 69.0 8.44 37.5 15.26 4.89 Delaware .............................. 17.79 100.0 15.87 53.5 13.99 2.1 14.12 W District of Columbia...............

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


401

Microsoft Word - table_13.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 13. Additions to and Withdrawals from Gas Storage by State, 2010 (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ................... 23,026 16,740 6,286 946 968 -21 6,264 Arkansas................... 4,672 4,368 304 42 40 2 306 California .................. 226,810 203,653 23,157 56 54 2 23,159 Colorado ................... 43,250 45,010 -1,760 0 0 0 -1,760 Connecticut............... 0 0 0 651 473 178 178 Delaware .................. 0 0 0 73 76 -2 -2 Georgia..................... 0 0 0 2,693 2,314 379 379 Idaho......................... 0 0 0 142 72 70 70 Illinois........................ 247,458 245,135 2,323 398 325 74 2,397 Indiana...................... 21,943 22,454 -511 1,983 1,148 835 324 Iowa .......................... 76,407 78,444 -2,037 1,458 1,312 146 -1,891 Kansas...................... 113,253 121,737 -8,484

402

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

403

Microsoft Word - table_06.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 Table 6. Wellhead Value and Marketed Production of Natural Gas, 2001-2005, and by State, 2005 2001 Total ............................ 19,577,660 -- 4.00 20,570,295 82,202,805 2002 Total ............................ 14,467,289 -- 2.95 19,884,780 58,596,868 2003 Total ............................ 14,589,545 -- 4.88 19,974,360 97,555,375 2004 Total ............................ 15,223,749 -- 5.46 R 19,517,491 R 106,521,974 2005 Total ............................ 15,525,771 -- 7.33 18,950,734 138,987,902 Alabama ............................... 285,237 2,645,780 9.28 296,528 2,750,513 Alaska................................... 502,887 2,387,581 4.75 487,282 2,313,492 Arizona ................................. 211 1,445 6.86 233 1,599 Arkansas............................... 190,533 1,383,193 7.26

404

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2010 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............. 1 16,150 21,900 0 0 0 1 9,000 11,000 2 25,150 32,900 Arkansas............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13,898 21,760 2 13,898 21,760 California ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 311,096 542,511 13 311,096 542,511 Colorado ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 49,119 105,768 9 49,119 105,768 Illinois.................. 0 0 0 17 216,132 772,381 11 87,368 218,106 28 303,500 990,487 Indiana................ 0 0 0 13 19,437 81,268 9 13,545 30,003 22 32,982 111,271 Iowa .................... 0 0 0 4 90,613 288,010 0 0 0 4 90,613 288,010 Kansas................ 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 122,814 283,891 19 123,190 284,821 Kentucky............. 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 100,971 212,184 23 107,600 221,751 Louisiana ............

405

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 24. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Residential and Commercial Sector Consumers by Local Distribution and Marketers in Selected States, 2007-2008 (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Florida................................... 20.55 23.23 20.61 97.79 21.11 25.00 21.19 97.78 Georgia................................. 14.64 18.02 17.53 14.35 15.46 18.73 18.26 14.43 Maryland ............................... 14.95 16.26 15.17 83.26 15.98 16.54 16.08 83.15 New Jersey ........................... 14.45 16.50 14.48 98.35 15.15 18.07 15.21 97.98 New York .............................. R 15.79 15.46 R 15.73 R 82.34 16.79 16.57 16.75 80.64 Ohio ...................................... 13.05 13.95 13.47 53.01 14.60 14.45 14.52 52.47 Pennsylvania ........................

406

Microsoft Word - table_14.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 14. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 2009 (Capacity in Million Cubic Feet) Alabama ............. 1 11,900 15,900 0 0 0 1 9,000 11,000 2 20,900 26,900 Arkansas............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13,898 21,760 2 13,898 21,760 California ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 296,096 513,005 13 296,096 513,005 Colorado ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 48,129 105,768 9 48,129 105,768 Illinois.................. 0 0 0 18 252,344 885,848 10 51,418 103,606 28 303,761 989,454 Indiana................ 0 0 0 12 19,367 81,328 10 12,791 32,946 22 32,157 114,274 Iowa .................... 0 0 0 4 87,414 284,811 0 0 0 4 87,414 284,811 Kansas................ 1 375 931 0 0 0 18 118,964 281,370 19 119,339 282,300 Kentucky............. 0 0 0 3 6,629 9,567 20 96,855 210,801 23 103,484 220,368 Louisiana ............

407

Microsoft Word - table_08.doc  

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

5 5 Table 8. Summary of U.S. natural gas imports, 2008-2012 Imports Volume (million cubic feet) Pipeline Canada a 3,589,089 3,271,107 3,279,752 3,117,081 2,962,827 Mexico 43,314 28,296 29,995 2,672 314 Total Pipeline Imports 3,632,403 3,299,402 3,309,747 3,119,753 2,963,140 LNG by Vessel Egypt 54,839 160,435 72,990 35,120 2,811 Nigeria 12,049 13,306 41,733 2,362 0 Norway 14,882 29,327 26,014 15,175 6,212 Peru 0 0 16,045 16,620 0 Qatar 3,108 12,687 45,583 90,972 33,823 Trinidad/Tobago 266,821 236,202 189,748 128,620 112,207 Yemen 0 0 38,897 60,071 19,595 Total LNG Imports 351,698 451,957 431,010 348,939 174,649 Total Imports 3,984,101 3,751,360

408

Microsoft Word - table_19.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6 6 Table 19. Number of Natural Gas Residential Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2004-2005 Alabama ...................... R 806,660 R 0 R 806,660 799,256 0 799,256 Alaska.......................... 104,360 0 104,360 108,401 0 108,401 Arizona ........................ 993,885 0 993,885 1,042,662 0 1,042,662 Arkansas...................... R 554,844 0 R 554,844 555,861 0 555,861 California ..................... 9,921,331 R 36,081 R 9,957,412 10,092,466 31,967 10,124,433 Colorado ...................... R 1,496,873 3 R 1,496,876 1,524,810 3 1,524,813 Connecticut.................. 468,918 414 469,332 474,807 414 475,221 District of Columbia...... 120,709 17,425 138,134 127,139 13,873 141,012 Delaware ..................... 133,197 0 133,197 137,115 0 137,115 Florida.......................... R 628,104 10,910

409

Microsoft Word - table_20.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 20. Number of Natural Gas Commercial Consumers by Type of Service and State, 2006-2007 Alabama ...................... R 66,222 115 R 66,337 65,738 118 65,856 Alaska.......................... 12,858 1,526 14,384 12,491 917 13,408 Arizona ........................ 56,955 136 57,091 57,047 122 57,169 Arkansas...................... 69,318 157 69,475 69,319 176 69,495 California ..................... 426,379 15,673 442,052 421,449 24,671 446,120 Colorado ...................... 139,566 180 139,746 141,201 219 141,420 Connecticut.................. 49,056 3,926 52,982 48,522 3,867 52,389 Delaware ..................... 12,288 57 12,345 12,507 69 12,576 District of Columbia...... 7,004 3,406 10,410 6,867 3,048 9,915 Florida.......................... 41,190 14,069 55,259 41,325 15,995 57,320

410

Microsoft Word - table_11.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 11. Summary of U.S. Natural Gas Exports By Point of Exit, 2001-2005 (Volumes in Million Cubic Feet, Prices in Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Pipeline (Canada) Eastport, ID......................... 0 -- 176 4.40 15 4.34 48 5.36 0 -- Detroit, MI ........................... 35,644 4.57 7,431 3.03 19,737 5.47 40,030 6.47 40,255 8.12 Marysville, MI...................... 3,651 3.92 0 -- 811 5.06 4,455 6.83 5,222 7.92 Sault Ste. Marie, MI ............ 0 -- 0 -- 605 4.94 6,666 6.38 5,537 8.13 St. Clair, MI ......................... 122,293 3.82 164,084 3.42 238,444 6.13 317,797 6.56 286,804 7.77 Noyes, MN .......................... 0 -- 71 1.99 172 5.43 2,193 5.77 0 -- Babb, MT ............................ 549 3.55 143 2.28 38 6.48 1,429 4.98 0 -- Havre, MT ...........................

411

Microsoft Word - table_23.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

4 4 Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers by State and Sector, 2005 (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Alabama ............................... 15.82 100.00 13.13 81.65 9.51 23.59 -- 9.67 Alaska................................... 5.73 100.00 4.93 51.19 2.59 68.65 -- 3.42 Arizona ................................. 13.54 100.00 9.85 93.29 8.53 43.63 7.91 8.24 Arkansas............................... 13.65 100.00 10.20 74.07 9.44 5.23 10.16 8.59 California .............................. 11.86 99.66 10.69 68.67 9.84 5.46 8.80 8.09 Colorado ............................... 10.29 99.99 9.39 95.15 8.68 0.59 8.17 7.41 Connecticut........................... 16.24 98.75 13.00 70.34 11.68 46.41 14.60 9.31 District of Columbia............... 16.87 79.76 13.17 100.00 --

412

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 Table 4. Offshore gross withdrawals of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2007-2011 (million cubic feet) 2007 Total 276,117 341,925 618,042 2,204,379 654,334 2,858,713 3,476,755 Alabama 134,451 0 134,451 NA NA NA 134,451 Alaska 48,876 325,328 374,204 0 0 0 374,204 California 312 6,977 7,289 2,137 43,379 45,516 52,805 Gulf of Mexico 0 0 0 2,202,242 610,955 2,813,197 2,813,197 Louisiana 63,357 9,512 72,868 NA NA NA 72,868 Texas 29,121 108 29,229 NA NA NA 29,229 2008 Total 297,565 356,139 653,704 1,849,891 524,965 2,374,857 3,028,561 Alabama 125,502 0 125,502 NA NA NA 125,502 Alaska 43,079 345,109 388,188 0 0 0 388,188 California 266 6,764 7,029 1,601 43,300 44,902

413

Microsoft Word - table_04.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Table 4. Offshore Gross Withdrawals of Natural Gas by State and the Gulf of Mexico, 2003-2007 (Million Cubic Feet) 2003 Total ................ 456,090 254,150 710,240 3,565,614 939,828 4,505,443 5,215,683 Alabama.................. 194,339 0 194,339 NA NA NA 194,339 Alaska..................... 85,606 236,404 322,010 0 0 0 322,010 California................. 0 6,866 6,866 1,731 56,363 58,095 64,961 Gulf of Mexico......... 0 0 0 3,563,883 883,465 4,447,348 4,447,348 Louisiana ................ 123,939 9,517 133,456 NA NA NA 133,456 Texas...................... 52,206 1,363 53,569 NA NA NA 53,569 2004 Total ................ 401,662 279,249 680,911 3,214,488 840,852 4,055,340 4,736,252 Alabama.................. 165,630 0 165,630 NA NA NA 165,630 Alaska..................... 73,457 260,667 334,125

414

Microsoft Word - table_25.doc  

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

8 8 Table 25. Average price of natural gas delivered to residential and commercial sector consumers by local distribution and marketers in selected states, 2011-2012 (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Georgia 11.98 16.38 15.72 15.1 12.47 16.82 16.23 13.5 New York 13.52 14.22 13.71 72.4 12.72 13.59 12.97 71.2 Ohio 10.32 11.09 10.78 40.8 8.75 10.42 9.91 30.9 Residential 2011 2012 State Local Distribution Company Average Price a Marketer Average Price b Combined Average Price c Percent Sold by Local Distribution Company Local Distribution Company Average Price a Marketer Average Price b Combined Average Price c Percent Sold by Local Distribution Company a Price derived from Form EIA-176, "Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition."

415

Statement of Work for Direct Push Technology Characterization Borehole Installations During Fiscal Year 2006, 300-FF-5 Operable Unit  

SciTech Connect

This document specifies activities to be performed by FHI to fulfill Part II of the 300-FF-5 Operable Unit Limited Field Investigation. The scope includes driving up to 15 direct push technology boreholes to the water table for radiological geophysical logging of the vadose zone to define the vertical extent and concentration of process uranium waste in the subsurface. Drilling and sampling field activates will follow FHI waste management, risk assessment and QA process and procedures. The sampling and analysis of information recovered during this characterization will meet the Hanford Performance Assessment Project QAAP requirements.

Williams, Bruce A.

2005-11-29T23:59:59.000Z

416

Effects of Water Table Drawdown on Root Production and Aboveground  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

by 740% (3.8 ± 5.4 SD and 28.1 ± 24.1 g m-2 y-1 in undrained and drained sites, respectively a significant shift in shrub species composition. Although trees dominated the aboveground biomass following% of the global land surface area (4 million km2 ) and make up 50­70% of all wetlands. The majority

Moore, Tim

417

EIA - Reference Case Projection Tables 1990-2030  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Tables (1990-2030) Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2006 Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region, Reference Case Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel, Reference Case Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

418

SECTION 49 Table of Contents 49 Lake Rufus Woods Subbasin Inventory of Existing Programs  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

49-1 SECTION 49 ­ Table of Contents 49 Lake Rufus Woods Subbasin Inventory of Existing Programs #12;49-2 49 Lake Rufus Woods Subbasin Inventory of Existing Programs ­ Terrestrial 49.1 Current Management Directions Within the Lake Rufus Woods Subbasin, fish and wildlife resources are co

419

Water quality management plan for Cherokee Reservoir  

SciTech Connect

The management plan provides an assessment of Cherokee Reservoir's current water quality, identifies those factors which affect reservoir water quality, and develops recommendations aimed at restoring or maintaining water quality at levels sufficient to support diverse beneficial uses. 20 references, 8 figures, 15 tables. (ACR)

Not Available

1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

420

FY 2005 Control Table by Organization  

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

Organization Organization (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) Table of Contents Summary...................................................................................................... 1 Mandatory Funding....................................................................................... 2 National Nuclear Security Administration..................................................... 3 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.................................................... 4 Electric Transmission and Distribution......................................................... 4 Fossil Energy................................................................................................ 5 Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology...................................................

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


421

Federal Buildings Supplemental Survey -- Publication and Tables  

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

Overview > Publication and Tables Overview > Publication and Tables Publication and Tables Percent of FBSS Buildings and Floorspace by Selected Agencies, FY 1993 Percent of FBSS buildings and floorspace by selected agencies, FY 1993 Sources: Energy Information Administration, Energy Markets and End Use, 1993 Federal Buildings Supplemental Survey. Separater Bar Separater Bar You have the option of downloading the entire report or selected sections of the report. Full Report - Federal Buildings Supplemental Survey, 1993 (file size 1.15 MB) pages: 183 Selected Sections Main Text (file size 161,775 bytes) pages: 17. - Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader Contacts Preface Contents Introduction At a Glance Highlights on Federal Buildings Detailed Tables Appendices Appendix A. How the Survey Was Conducted (file size 45,191 bytes) pages: 8.

422

FY 2005 Control Table by Appropriation  

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

Appropriation Appropriation (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) Table of Contents Summary...................................................................................................... 1 Mandatory Funding....................................................................................... 3 Energy Supply.............................................................................................. 4 Non-Defense site acceleration completion................................................... 5 Uranium enrichment D&D fund.................................................................... 5 Non-Defense environmental services.......................................................... 5 Science.........................................................................................................

423

Commercial Buildings Characteristics 1992 - Publication and Tables  

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

Buildings Characteristics Data > Publication and Tables Buildings Characteristics Data > Publication and Tables Publication and Tables Percent of Buildings and Floorspace by Census Region, 1992 figure on percent of building and floorspace by census region, 1992 separater bar To View and/or Print Reports (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) - Download Adobe Acrobat Reader If you experience any difficulties, visit our Technical Frequently Asked Questions. You have the option of downloading the entire report or selected sections of the report. Full Report - Commercial Buildings Characteristics, 1992 with only selected tables (file size 1.34 MB) pages: 157 Selected Sections: Main Text (file size 883,980 bytes) pages: 28, includes the following: Contacts Contents Executive Summary Introduction Background Organization of the report

424

ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

#12;ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents Web: http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu Colorado Climate Spring 2002 Vol. 3, No. 2 Lightning in Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Colorado Climate in Review

425

TableHC11.12.xls  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

... 2.8 0.3 Q 0.2 Million U.S. Housing Units Home Electronics Usage Indicators Table HC11.12 Home Electronics Usage Indicators by Northeast Census Region,...

426

TableHC6.13.xls  

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

Q 5 or More... 0.3 N Q Q Q Q Lighting Usage Indicators 4 Members 5 or More Members Table HC6.13 Lighting Usage Indicators by...

427

TABLES3.CHP:Corel VENTURA  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

S3. Crude Oil and Petroleum Product Imports, 1988 - Present (Thousand Barrels per Day) See footnotes at end of table. 1988 Average ... 300 58 345 343 92 80 0 0 1989...

428

Table of Contents Resilient Sustainable Communities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

..................................... 5 Onondaga County: Sustainable Development Plan....................... 9 Comparison of the Hazard Mitigation Plan and Onondaga County Sustainable Development Plan DraftTable of Contents Resilient Sustainable Communities: Integrating Hazard Mitigation & Sustainability

429

Table of Contents Chapter and Content Pages  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

#12;Page 2 Table of Contents Chapter and Content Pages 1. Field Trip Itinerary ................................................................................. 7 4. Geologic Framework of the Netherlands Antilles 5. Coral Reefs of the Netherlands Antilles

Fouke, Bruce W.

430

Table of Contents 2012Skulematters  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

: The University of Toronto respects your privacy. We do not rent, trade or sell our mailing lists. If you do, from DNA to drinking water; from doctor shortages to a reimagined toilet, U of T engineers are making and New York University in the New York City-based Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP), we

431

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2 2 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C9. Electric Power Sector Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Nuclear Electric Power Hydroelectric Power b Biomass Geothermal Solar/PV d Wind Net Electricity Imports e Total f Distillate Fuel Oil Petroleum Coke Residual Fuel Oil Total Wood and Waste c Alabama ............. 586.1 349.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 411.8 86.3 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,439.3 Alaska ................. 6.0 42.3 3.3 0.0 1.5 4.8 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 (s) 66.3 Arizona ............... 449.9 183.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 327.3 89.1 2.4 0.0 0.8 2.5 1.5 1,057.9 Arkansas ............. 300.5 109.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.6 148.5 28.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 588.9 California ............ 19.7 630.1 0.4 11.1 (s) 11.5 383.6 413.4 69.0 122.0 8.4 75.3 20.1 1,753.1 Colorado ............. 362.4 88.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 20.2 0.9

432

Microsoft Word - table_03.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table 3. Gross withdrawals and marketed production of natural gas by state and the Gulf of Mexico, 2007-2011 (million cubic feet) 2007 Total R 14,991,891 R 5,681,871 R 1,999,748 1,990,145 24,663,656 3,662,685 143,457 661,168 20,196,346 930,320 19,266,026 2008 Total R 15,134,644 R 5,609,425 R 2,022,228 R 2,869,960 25,636,257 3,638,622 166,909 718,674 21,112,053 953,451 20,158,602 2009 Total R 14,414,287 R 5,674,120 R 2,010,171 R 3,958,315 26,056,893 3,522,090 165,360 721,507 21,647,936 1,024,082 20,623,854 2010 Total R 13,247,498 R 5,834,703 1,916,762 5,817,122 R 26,816,085 3,431,587 165,928 836,698 R 22,381,873 R 1,066,366 R 21,315,507 2011 Total 12,291,070 5,907,919 1,779,055 8,500,983 28,479,026 3,365,313 209,439 867,922 24,036,352 1,134,473 22,901,879

433

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 18. Natural gas delivered to commercial consumers for the account of others by state, 2008-2012 (volumes in million cubic feet) Alabama 4,999 19.8 5,160 21.2 5,494 20.3 5,313 21.1 5,126 23.8 Alaska 4,274 25.1 2,448 14.7 1,951 12.3 2,208 R 11.4 1,005 5.1 Arizona 2,258 6.9 3,866 12.0 3,605 11.3 3,988 12.2 4,213 13.4 Arkansas 13,112 35.5 14,776 40.6 17,862 44.4 19,402 48.5 24,772 59.8 California 108,738 43.3 111,702 45.1 113,903 45.9 R 112,448 45.7 126,571 50.0 Colorado 3,132 4.8 3,240 5.2 3,118 5.4 3,457 6.2 4,061 7.8 Connecticut 11,032 29.3 12,324 31.0 14,068 34.6 15,519 34.6 14,774 34.9 Delaware 2,611 29.4 5,438 46.5 6,117 50.2 4,879 46.6 5,647 56.3 District of Columbia 15,110 82.1 15,550 83.1 15,507 83.6 14,029

434

Microsoft Word - table_18.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

5 5 Table 18. Natural gas delivered to commercial consumers for the account of others by state, 2007-2011 (volumes in million cubic feet) Alabama 4,722 20.2 4,999 19.8 5,160 21.2 5,494 R 20.3 5,313 21.1 Alaska 4,499 24.0 4,274 25.1 2,448 14.7 1,951 12.3 2,208 13.3 Arizona 2,172 6.6 2,258 6.9 3,866 12.0 3,605 11.3 3,988 12.2 Arkansas 9,534 29.6 13,112 35.5 14,776 40.6 17,862 44.4 19,402 48.5 California 98,776 39.3 108,738 43.3 111,702 45.1 113,903 45.9 112,561 45.7 Colorado 2,721 4.3 3,132 4.8 3,240 5.2 R 3,118 5.4 3,457 6.2 Connecticut 10,252 28.5 11,032 29.3 12,324 31.0 14,068 34.6 15,519 34.6 Delaware 2,178 25.2 2,611 29.4 5,438 46.5 6,117 50.2 4,879 46.6 District of Columbia 15,703 81.4 15,110 82.1 15,550 83.1 15,507 83.6 14,029

435

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

State State Energy Data 2011: Consumption 11 Table C8. Transportation Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy Electrical System Energy Losses e Total Aviation Gasoline Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel b LPG c Lubricants Motor Gasoline d Residual Fuel Oil Total Alabama ............. 0.0 23.5 0.4 124.4 13.4 0.3 2.3 316.3 6.7 463.7 0.0 487.2 0.0 487.2 Alaska ................. 0.0 3.5 0.8 44.4 118.2 (s) 0.4 32.9 0.4 197.2 0.0 200.7 0.0 200.7 Arizona ............... 0.0 15.6 1.0 111.3 21.5 0.8 1.6 318.2 0.0 454.5 0.0 470.1 0.0 470.1 Arkansas ............. 0.0 11.5 0.4 99.7 5.9 0.4 2.0 171.3 0.0 279.8 (s) 291.2 (s) 291.2 California ............ 0.0 25.7 1.9 440.9 549.7 3.8 13.3 1,770.1 186.9 2,966.5 2.8 2,995.1 5.5 3,000.5 Colorado ............. 0.0 14.7 0.6 83.2 58.3 0.3

436

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

9 9 Table C6. Commercial Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Hydro- electric Power e Biomass Geothermal Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy g Electrical System Energy Losses h Total g Distillate Fuel Oil Kerosene LPG b Motor Gasoline c Residual Fuel Oil Total d Wood and Waste f Alabama ............. 0.0 25.5 7.0 (s) 2.7 0.2 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 75.9 112.4 144.8 257.2 Alaska ................. 9.4 16.9 10.1 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 9.7 48.0 20.2 68.2 Arizona ............... 0.0 33.1 6.8 (s) 1.5 0.7 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.5 (s) 100.7 143.2 202.3 345.5 Arkansas ............. 0.0 40.6 3.6 (s) 1.2 0.4 0.0 5.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 41.4 88.6 86.1 174.7 California ............ 0.0 250.9 47.9 0.1 8.7 1.4 0.0 58.1 (s) 17.4 0.7 418.9 746.2 809.9 1,556.1 Colorado ............. 3.2 57.6 5.9 (s) 2.9 0.2 0.0 9.1 0.0 1.2 0.2

437

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

7 7 Table 24. Average price of natural gas delivered to consumers by state and sector, 2011 (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Alabama 15.09 100.0 12.37 78.9 5.56 23.4 11.45 4.36 Alaska 8.77 100.0 8.77 86.7 3.84 60.8 -- 5.04 Arizona 15.04 100.0 9.99 87.8 6.86 24.2 7.73 5.02 Arkansas 11.46 100.0 8.90 51.5 7.44 2.1 -- 4.73 California 9.93 98.3 8.28 54.3 7.04 4.5 7.32 4.71 Colorado 8.25 100.0 7.84 93.8 6.42 7.6 9.56 4.97 Connecticut 13.83 96.8 8.48 65.4 9.16 31.4 18.59 5.09 Delaware 15.38 100.0 13.58 53.4 11.69 1.6 28.76 W District of Columbia 13.06 75.0 12.24 16.9 -- -- 4.17 -- Florida 18.16 98.1 11.11 39.8 8.07 3.0 4.93 5.86 Georgia 15.72 100.0 10.51 100.0 5.90 18.2 5.57 4.72 Hawaii 55.28 100.0 45.58

438

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

0 0 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C7. Industrial Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal Natural Gas a Petroleum Hydro- electric power e Biomass Geo- thermal Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy h,i Electrical System Energy Losses j Total h,i Distillate Fuel Oil LPG b Motor Gasoline c Residual Fuel Oil Other d Total Wood and Waste f Losses and Co- products g Alabama ............. 65.0 179.1 23.9 3.7 3.3 6.7 46.3 83.9 0.0 147.2 0.0 (s) 115.1 590.4 219.5 810.0 Alaska ................. 0.1 253.8 19.2 0.1 1.0 0.0 27.1 47.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.5 306.0 9.4 315.4 Arizona ............... 10.0 22.0 33.2 1.4 4.6 (s) 18.4 57.6 0.0 1.4 3.1 0.2 42.1 136.5 84.7 221.2 Arkansas ............. 5.6 93.1 31.1 2.6 4.0 0.1 17.4 55.1 0.0 72.7 0.0 (s) 58.0 284.5 120.5 405.0 California ............ 35.6 767.4 77.2 23.9 29.6 (s) 312.5

439

All Consumption Tables.vp  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

8 8 State Energy Data 2011: Consumption Table C5. Residential Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 2011 (Trillion Btu) State Coal a Natural Gas b Petroleum Biomass Geothermal Solar/PV e Retail Electricity Sales Net Energy f Electrical System Energy Losses g Total f Distillate Fuel Oil Kerosene LPG c Total Wood d Alabama ............. 0.0 37.2 0.1 0.1 6.0 6.2 6.0 0.1 0.2 112.6 162.2 214.7 376.9 Alaska ................. 0.0 20.5 8.1 0.1 0.5 8.8 1.9 0.1 (s) 7.3 38.6 15.1 53.7 Arizona ............... 0.0 39.1 (s) (s) 5.5 5.5 2.6 (s) 7.9 112.9 168.0 226.8 394.7 Arkansas ............. 0.0 34.2 0.1 (s) 5.2 5.3 8.6 0.7 0.2 64.1 113.1 133.2 246.3 California ............ 0.0 522.4 0.6 0.6 30.9 32.2 33.3 0.2 43.2 301.6 932.9 583.1 1,516.1 Colorado ............. 0.0 134.2 0.1 (s) 12.3 12.4 8.3 0.2 0.7 62.4 216.5 136.5 353.0 Connecticut ......... 0.0 46.0 59.6

440

Microsoft Word - table_24.doc  

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

7 7 Table 24. Average price of natural gas delivered to consumers by state and sector, 2012 (dollars per thousand cubic feet) Alabama 16.20 100.0 12.55 76.2 4.35 22.1 17.99 3.09 Alaska 8.47 100.0 8.09 94.9 5.11 100.0 -- 4.32 Arizona 15.75 100.0 9.35 86.6 5.78 21.4 13.19 3.51 Arkansas 11.82 100.0 7.99 40.2 6.38 1.9 9.04 3.19 California 9.14 97.5 7.05 50.0 5.77 4.2 7.01 3.68 Colorado 8.31 100.0 7.58 92.2 5.79 6.8 11.65 W Connecticut 14.17 96.7 8.40 65.1 8.83 32.3 13.70 3.99 Delaware 15.24 100.0 13.31 43.7 11.61 0.3 30.97 -- District of Columbia 12.10 73.9 11.19 17.9 -- -- 9.38 -- Florida 18.31 97.7 10.41 37.0 6.96 2.7 9.83 4.80 Georgia 16.23 100.0 9.74 100.0 4.60 20.0 14.51 3.40 Hawaii 52.86 100.0 47.03

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


441

RSE Table 7.5 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.5  

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

5 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.5;" " Unit: Percents." " ",," "," ",," "," " "Economic",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and" "Characteristic(a)","Electricity","Fuel...

442

RSE Table 10.12 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.12  

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

2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 10.12;" " Unit: Percents." ,,"LPG",,,"Alternative Energy Sources(b)" ,,,"Coal Coke" "NAICS"," ","Total"," ","Not","Electricity","Natural...

443

U.S. Department of Energy Wind and Water Power Program Funding...  

Energy Savers (EERE)

the intake maintenance device, minimizing the need for burning debris, and thus reducing air pollution. continued > WIND AND WATER POWER TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE 4 Table 1: FY 2008 -...

444

Life-Cycle Water Impacts of U.S. Transportation Fuels  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

and Sustainability: U.S. Electricity Consumption for Water116 Table 38: Electricity Consumption/Generation at SWPattributional LCA of electricity consumption in the United

Scown, Corinne Donahue

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

445

Ground water of Yucca Mountain: How high can it rise?; Final report  

SciTech Connect

This report describes the geology, hydrology, and possible rise of the water tables at Yucca Mountain. The possibilities of rainfall and earthquakes causing flooding is discussed.

NONE

1992-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

446

Qualified Energy Conservation Bond State-by-State Summary Tables  

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

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

447

Residential Transportation Historical Data Tables for 1983-2001  

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

RTECS Historical Data Tables RTECS Historical Data Tables Residential Transportation Historical Data Tables Released: May 2008 Below are historical data tables from the Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey (RTECS) and Household Vehicles Energy Use: Latest Data & Trends report. These tables cover the trends in energy consumption for household transportation throughout the survey years. The data focus on several important indicators of demand for transportation: number and type of vehicles per household; vehicle-miles traveled per household and per vehicle; fuel consumption; fuel expenditures; and fuel economy. Excel PDF Trends in Households & Vehicles Table 1. Number of Households with Vehicles excel pdf Table 2. Percent of Households with Vehicles excel pdf

448

EIA - Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables 1990-2030  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2006 Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 13 complete) Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table C1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region, Low Economic Growth Case Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Low Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table C2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel, Low Economic Growth Case

449

EIA - Appendix A - Reference Case Projection Tables 1990-2030  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Tables (1990-2030) Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table A1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table A2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

450

EIA - Appendix D - High Price Case Projections Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

High Price Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) High Price Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) International Energy Outlook 2010 High Oil Price Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 12 complete) High Oil Price Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Appendix D. High Oil Price Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table D1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table D1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table D2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table D2. World total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

451

EIA - Appendix A - Reference Case Projection Tables 1990-2030  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2008 Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table A1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table A2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

452

EIA - International Energy Outlook 2007-Reference Case Projection Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2007 Reference Case Projections Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 14 complete) Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Reference Case Projections Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region Table A1. World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table A2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table A2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

453

RSE Table 3.5 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.5  

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

5 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.5;" 5 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.5;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," "," "," "," "," "," ","Waste",," " " "," "," ","Blast"," "," ","Pulping Liquor"," ","Oils/Tars" "NAICS"," "," ","Furnace/Coke","Waste","Petroleum","or","Wood Chips,","and Waste" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Oven Gases","Gas","Coke","Black Liquor","Bark","Materials"

454

NETL Water Paper Draft 2  

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

` ` ADDRESSING THE CRITICAL LINK BETWEEN FOSSIL ENERGY AND WATER The Department of Energy/Office of Fossil Energy's Water-Related Research, Development, and Demonstration Programs Contributing Authors: Thomas Feeley, DOE/NETL John Duda, DOE/NETL Lindsay Green, SAIC Robert Kleinmann, DOE/NETL James Murphy, SAIC Terry Ackman, DOE/NETL Jeffrey Hoffmann, DOE/NETL DOE/FE Energy-Water RD&D Programs, October 2005 October 2005 DOE/FE Energy-Water RD&D Programs, October 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. DOE/FE Energy-Water RD&D Programs, October 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................

455

Shake Table for Calibration of Velocity Pickups  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

A Shake Table was developed and built by the Engineering Research Institute to calibrate low?frequency (0 to 200 cps) velocity pickups. The platform that supports the pickup to be tested is 6 in. in diameter and will support a load of approximately 30 lb. This makes the use of a table limited by force it can deliver except at very low frequencies. The table will operate with a 10 lb load to a frequency of 150 cps. The platform displacement is 0.125 in. peak?to?peak. The platform and its load are supported by air bellows. This is an improvement over a spring support due to the fact that it has greater damping and it is more easily adjusted to different loads. The adjustment consists of just putting more air in the bellows. The table is driven by a dc push?pull power amplifier. This delivers a current to a tapped coil on the Shake Table that is located in a magnetic field. The field is set up by a coil energized by 24 volts. The power amplifier can be driven by any convenient source delivering about 1 volt. (Parts of this research were supported by Tri?service Contract No. DA?36?039?sc?52654.)

J. W. Wescott; J. H. Prout; W. H. Follett

1957-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

456

Table Definitions, Sources, and Explanatory Notes  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Residual Fuel Oil by End Use Residual Fuel Oil by End Use Definitions Key Terms Definition All Other Sales for all other energy-consuming sectors not included elsewhere. Commercial An energy-consuming sector that consists of service-providing facilities and equipment of nonmanufacturing businesses; Federal, State, and local governments; and other private and public organizations, such as religious, social, or fraternal groups. The commercial sector includes institutional living quarters. Common uses of energy associated with this sector include space heating, water heating, air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration, cooking and running a wide variety of other equipment. Electric Utility An energy-consuming sector that consists of electricity only and combined heat and power (CHP) plants whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat, to the public -- i.e., NAICS 22 plants. Volumes directly imported and used by the electric power companies are included.

457

Water quality Water quantity  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

01-1 · Water quality · Water quantity · Remediation strategies MinE 422: Water Resources: Younger, Banwart and Hedin. 2002. Mine Water. Hydrology, Pollution, Remediation. Impacts of mining on water mining ­ Often the largest long term issue ­ Water quality affected, surface/ground water pollution

Boisvert, Jeff

458

Water quality Water quantity  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

· Water quality · Water quantity · Remediation strategies MinE 422: Water Resources: Younger, Banwart and Hedin. 2002. Mine Water. Hydrology, Pollution, Remediation. Impacts of mining on water mining ­ Often the largest long term issue ­ Water quality affected, surface/ground water pollution

Boisvert, Jeff

459

EIA - Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Supplemental Tables to the AEO 2008 Supplemental Tables to the AEO 2008 Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 The AEO Supplemental tables were generated for the reference case of the Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO2008) using the National Energy Modeling System, a computer-based model which produces annual projections of energy markets for 2005 to 2030. Most of the tables were not published in the AEO2008, but contain regional and other more detailed projections underlying the AEO2008 projections. The files containing these tables are in spreadsheet format. A total of one hundred and seventeen tables are presented. The data for tables 10 and 20 match those published in AEO2008 Appendix tables A2 and A3, respectively. Projections for 2007 and 2008 may differ slightly from values published in the Short Term Energy Outlook, which are the official EIA short-term projections and are based on more current information than the AEO.

460

EIA - High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables 1990-2030  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) International Energy Outlook 2006 High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables (1990-2030) Formats Data Table Titles (1 to 13 complete) High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table B1 World Total Primary Energy Consumption by Region, High Economic Growth Case High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. High Economic Growth Case Projection Tables. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

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


461

Directives Help  

Directives, Delegations, and Requirements

All DOE directives are available through this site. While it may seem overwhelming, given the number of documents, we have provided a number of ways in which you may get to the information you need.

462

Direct from CDC Environmental Health  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

environmental health services (i.e., services involving water quality, air quality, waste management, or vector management plans of water supply systems. The team also works on sustainability evalu ation and sanitationDirect from CDC Environmental Health Services Branch Editor's note: NEHA strives to provide up

463

Particle Data Group - 2012 Reviews, Tables, Plots  

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

Downloadable figures are available for these reviews. Complete list of Reviews in the Particle Listings.. Categories: Constants, Units, Atomic and Nuclear Properties Physical Constants (rev.) Astrophysical Constants International System of units (SI) Periodic table of the elements (rev.) Electronic structure of the elements (rev.) Atomic and nuclear properties of materials PDF / Interactive Electromagnetic relations Naming scheme for hadrons Collapse table Standard Model and Related Topics Quantum Chromodynamics (rev.) Electroweak model and constraints on new physics (rev.) Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa quark-mixing matrix (rev.) CP violation (rev.) Neutrino mass, mixing, and oscillations (rev.) Quark model (rev.) Grand Unified Theories (rev.) Heavy-Quark and Soft-Collinear Effective Theory (new)

464

POWER PLANT WATER USAGE AND LOSS STUDY - Final  

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

POWER PLANT WATER USAGE AND LOSS STUDY POWER PLANT WATER USAGE AND LOSS STUDY August 2005 Revised May 2007 Prepared for: The United States Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory DOE Gasification Technology Manager: Gary J. Stiegel DOE Project Manager: James R. Longanbach Project Manager: Michael D. Rutkowski Principal Investigators: Michael G. Klett Norma J. Kuehn Ronald L. Schoff Vladimir Vaysman Jay S. White Power Plant Water Usage and Loss Study i August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... I LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................III

465

EIA - Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Data Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

2013 (See release cycle changes) | correction | full 2013 (See release cycle changes) | correction | full report Overview Data Reference Case Side Cases Interactive Table Viewer Topics Source Oil/Liquids Natural Gas Coal Electricity Renewable/Alternative Nuclear Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Energy Demand Other Emissions Prices Macroeconomic International Efficiency Publication Chapter Market Trends Issues in Focus Legislation & Regulations Comparison Appendices View All Filter By Source Oil Natural Gas Coal Electricity Renewable/Alternative Nuclear Sector Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Other Topics Emissions Prices Macroeconomic International Data TablesAll Tables Reference case summary & detailed tables... + EXPAND ALL Summary Case Tables additional formats Table 1. Total Energy Supply, Disposition, and Price Summary XLS

466

table5.6_02  

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

6 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; 6 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: End Uses; Column: Energy Sources, including Net Electricity; Unit: Trillion Btu. Distillate Fuel Oil Coal RSE Net Residual and Natural LPG and (excluding Coal Row End Use Total Electricity(a) Fuel Oil Diesel Fuel(b) Gas(c) NGL(d) Coke and Breeze) Other(e) Factors Total United States RSE Column Factors: 1 1 2.4 1.1 1.3 1 0 0 TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 16,273 2,840 208 141 5,794 103 1,182 6,006 3.3 Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel -- 12 127 35 2,162 8 776 -- 5.5 Conventional Boiler Use -- 9 76 25 1,306 8 255 -- 5.6 CHP and/or Cogeneration Process -- 4 51 10 857 * 521 -- 3.7 Direct Uses-Total Process -- 2,218 60 43 2,986 64 381 -- 2.9 Process Heating -- 343

467

table5.2_02  

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

2 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; 2 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National Data; Row: End Uses within NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources, including Net Electricity; Unit: Trillion Btu. Distillate Fuel Oil Coal RSE NAICS Net Residual and Natural LPG and (excluding Coal Row Code(a) End Use Total Electricity(b) Fuel Oil Diesel Fuel(c) Gas(d) NGL(e) Coke and Breeze) Other(f) Factors Total United States 311 - 339 ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES RSE Column Factors: 0.3 1 1 2.4 1.1 1.3 1 NF TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 16,273 2,840 208 141 5,794 103 1,182 6,006 3.3 Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel -- 12 127 25 2,162 8 776 -- 5.5 Conventional Boiler Use -- 9 76 25 1,306 8 255 -- 5.6 CHP and/or Cogeneration Process -- 4 51 10 857 * 521 -- 3.7 Direct Uses-Total Process

468

table5.8_02  

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

8 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; 8 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: End Uses; Column: Energy Sources, including Net Demand for Electricity; Unit: Trillion Btu. Distillate Net Demand Fuel Oil Coal RSE for Residual and Natural LPG and (excluding Coal Row End Use Electricity(a) Fuel Oil Diesel Fuel(b) Gas(c) NGL(d) Coke and Breeze) Factors Total United States RSE Column Factors: 0.3 2.4 1.1 1.3 1 0 TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 3,297 208 141 5,794 103 1,182 3.3 Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel 23 127 35 2,162 8 776 5.5 Conventional Boiler Use 11 76 25 1,306 8 255 5.6 CHP and/or Cogeneration Process 12 51 10 857 * 521 3.7 Direct Uses-Total Process 2,624 60 43 2,986 64 381 2.9 Process Heating 355 58 24 2,742 60 368 3.2

469

table5.4_02  

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

4 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; 4 End Uses of Fuel Consumption, 2002; Level: National Data; Row: End Uses within NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources, including Net Demand for Electricity; Unit: Trillion Btu. Distillate Net Demand Fuel Oil Coal RSE NAICS for Residual and Natural LPG and (excluding Coal Row Code(a) End Use Electricity(b) Fuel Oil Diesel Fuel(c) Gas(d) NGL(e) Coke and Breeze) Factors Total United States 311 - 339 ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES RSE Column Factors: NF 1 2.4 1.1 1.3 1 TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION 3,297 208 141 5,794 103 1,182 3.3 Indirect Uses-Boiler Fuel 23 127 25 2,162 8 776 5.5 Conventional Boiler Use 11 76 25 1,306 8 255 5.6 CHP and/or Cogeneration Process 12 51 10 857 * 521 3.7 Direct Uses-Total Process 2,624

470

ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

#12;ii Colorado Climate Table of Contents Web: http://climate.atmos.colostate.edu Colorado Climate Winter 2001-2002 Vol. 3, No. 1 Why Is the Park Range Colorado's Snowfall Capital? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 The Cold-Land Processes Field Experiment: North-Central Colorado

471

Student Mobile Device Survey Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

CiCS. Student Mobile Device Survey 2011 Table of Contents Section Number Subject Page 1 With little information and supporting evidence on student ownership and usage of mobile devices at the University of Sheffield, making decisions on our services and support for mobile devices has been based

Martin, Stephen John

472

Table of Contents Dean's Seminar 1  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

-ray Training and Technique Replica) peeking out from a dental chair, radiology resembles more of a fun house than a diagnostic screening room. "It is a weird area," admitted Kelly Wiss, lead dental radiologyTable of Contents Dean's Seminar 1 Radiology 2 IPE Opportunity 3 Recent Photos 4 Short Takes *The

Chapman, Michael S.

473

Table of Contents Division Organization 2  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) 12 Smart Grid Cyber Security 13 Supply Chain Risk Security and Forensics 33 NIST Cloud Computing Project 34 Policy Machine 35 Security for Grid#12;2002 Table of Contents Welcome 1 Division Organization 2 The Computer Security Division

474

STUDENT HANDBOOK Table of Contents Page Number  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

STUDENT HANDBOOK Campus #12;Table of Contents Page Number Welcome 1 The School 1 Mission Statement Student Resources 8 Financial Aid and Funding Sources Writing Supports 9 Special Needs Computers Libraries RefWorks 10 Student Services 11 Administrative Information 14 Student ID, and Email Accounts U of R

Saskatchewan, University of

475

FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION Table Of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

EM 385-1-1 XX Sep 13 i Section 9 FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION Table Of Contents Section: Page 09 and Melting Kettles.............................9-25 09.F First response Fire Protection FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION 09.A GENERAL 09.A.01 A fire prevention plan shall be written for all

US Army Corps of Engineers

476

CONTENTDM ADVANCED SEARCH TUTORIAL Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

1 CONTENTDM ADVANCED SEARCH TUTORIAL Table of Contents 1. Accessing the Advanced Search Page 1 2. Navigating the Advanced Search Page 3 3. Selecting your collection to search Advanced Search from the right navigation menu. 2 This will take you into the CONTENTdm database

O'Laughlin, Jay

477

Microsoft Word - table_B2.doc  

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

8 Table B2. Thermal conversion factors and data, 2009-2013 Conversion Factor (Btu per cubic foot) Production Marketed 1,101 1,098 1,142 R 1,091 1,100 NGPL Production 2,627 2,598...

478

Highperformance routingtable lookup  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...is a trie to which trie completion is applied. Three levels...in a hit and, thus, an index into the next hop table, or in a miss and, thus, an index into an array of chunks...In the rst case, an index to an array of chunks of...

2000-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

479

Table 24. Refining Industry Energy Consumption  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

- Corrections to Tables 24 to 32 - Corrections to Tables 24 to 32 Table 24. Refining Industry Energy Consumption 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2002- 2025 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 4/ (million metric tons) 190.4 185.7 188.0 191.3 207.3 215.6 220.0 222.8 225.1 226.3 228.0 230.7 234.1 237.5 238.5 239.4 239.4 238.6 240.6 240.5 242.2 244.2 245.9 246.3 246.6 1.2% Table 25. Food Industry Energy Consumption 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2002- 2025 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 3/ (million metric tons) 87.8 89.4 87.5 87.8 89.2 90.2 90.9 91.4 92.2 93.5 94.5 95.7 96.7 97.7 98.6 99.6 100.8 101.9 102.9 104.1 105.4 107.0 108.7 110.3 112.1 1.0% Table 26. Paper Industry Energy Consumption 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

480

EIA - Appendix E-Low Price Case Projections Tables  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

10 > Low Price Case Projections (2005-2035) 10 > Low Price Case Projections (2005-2035) International Energy Outlook 2010 Low Oil Price Case Projections Tables (2005-2035) Formats Table Data Titles (1 to 12 complete) Low Oil Price Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Appendix E. Low Oil Price Case Projections Tables (1990-2030). Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table E1 World Total Energy Consumption by Region Table E1. World Total Energy Consumption by Region. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800. Table E2 World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel Table E2. World Total Energy Consumption by Region and Fuel. Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800.

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


481

Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2003  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook 2003 Annual Energy Outlook 2003 Assumptions to the AEO2003 Nattional Energy Modeling System/Annual Energy Outlook 2003 Conference E-Mail Subscription Lists Forecasts Home Page Supplement Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2003 AEO Supplement Reference Case Forecast (2000-2025) - (HTML) Table 1. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (New England) Table 2. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (Middle Atlantic) Table 3. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East North Central) Table 4. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West North Central) Table 5. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (South Atlantic) Table 6. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (East South Central) Table 7. Energy Consumption by Source and Sector (West South Central)

482

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

99.2 - 105.3 See footnotes at end of table. 56 Energy Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 2000 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD...

483

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

66.6 - 72.3 See footnotes at end of table. 56 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 31. Motor Gasoline Prices by Grade, Sales Type, PAD...

484

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

133.6 - 276.4 See footnotes at end of table. 220 Energy Information AdministrationPetroleum Marketing Annual 2000 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type,...

485

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

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (EIA)

201.3 - 453.3 See footnotes at end of table. 262 Energy Information Administration Petroleum Marketing Annual 1995 Table 43. Refiner Motor Gasoline Volumes by Grade, Sales Type,...

486

Fusion Tables : new ways to collaborate on structured data  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Fusion Tables allows data collaborators to create, merge, navigate and set access control permissions on structured data. This thesis focuses on the collaboration tools that were added to Googles Fusion Tables. The ...

Kidon, Jonathan Goldberg

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

487

RSE Table 3.2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.2  

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

2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.2;" 2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.2;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," " "NAICS"," "," ","Net","Residual","Distillate","Natural","LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,5,25,20,5,27,6,0,10

488

RSE Table 5.2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.2  

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

2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.2;" 2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.2;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," ","Distillate"," "," ",," " " "," ",,,,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" "NAICS"," "," ","Net","Residual","and","Natural ","LPG and","(excluding Coal"," " "Code(a)","End Use","Total","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coke and Breeze)","Other(f)" ,,"Total United States" " 311 - 339","ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES"

489

RSE Table 7.3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.3  

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

3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.3;" 3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.3;" " Unit: Percents." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,"Natural Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components" " "," ",,,"Electricity",,,"Natural Gas",,,"Steam",," " " "," ",,"Electricity","from Sources",,"Natural Gas","from Sources",,"Steam","from Sources" " "," ","Electricity","from Local","Other than","Natural Gas","from Local","Other than","Steam","from Local","Other than"

490

RSE Table 5.4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.4  

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

4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.4;" 4 Relative Standard Errors for Table 5.4;" " Unit: Percents." " "," ",," ","Distillate"," "," " " "," ","Net Demand",,"Fuel Oil",,,"Coal" "NAICS"," ","for ","Residual","and","Natural ","LPG and","(excluding Coal" "Code(a)","End Use","Electricity(b)","Fuel Oil","Diesel Fuel(c)","Gas(d)","NGL(e)","Coke and Breeze)" ,,"Total United States" " 311 - 339","ALL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES" ,"TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION",2,3,6,2,3,9

491

RSE Table 7.9 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.9  

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

9 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.9;" 9 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.9;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," ",," "," "," "," "," "," "," ",," " " "," " "NAICS"," "," ",,"Residual","Distillate","Natural ","LPG and",,"Coke"," " "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total","Electricity","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(b)","Gas(c)","NGL(d)","Coal","and Breeze","Other(e)" ,,"Total United States" 311,"Food",4,4,24,21,5,23,7,0,20

492

RSE Table 1.2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 1.2  

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

2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 1.2;" 2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 1.2;" " Unit: Percents." " "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," "," " " "," "," ",," "," ",," "," ",," ","Shipments" "NAICS"," ",,"Net","Residual","Distillate","Natural","LPG and",,"Coke and"," ","of Energy Sources" "Code(a)","Subsector and Industry","Total(b)","Electricity(c)","Fuel Oil","Fuel Oil(d)","Gas(e)","NGL(f)","Coal","Breeze","Other(g)","Produced Onsite(h)"

493

RSE Table 7.7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.7  

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

7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.7;" 7 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.7;" " Unit: Percents." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,"Natural Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components" " "," ",,,,,,,,,,," " " "," ",,,"Electricity",,,"Natural Gas",,,"Steam" " "," ",,"Electricity","from Sources",,"Natural Gas","from Sources",,"Steam","from Sources" "NAICS"," ","Electricity","from Local","Other than","Natural Gas","from Local","Other than","Steam","from Local","Other than"

494

Water, water everywhere  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

... available water resources, either locally or globally, are by no means exhausted. At present desalination -- the removal of salt from sea water or brackish water -- is very ... or brackish water -- is very expensive, mainly because it consumes so much energy. Desalination provides less than 0.2 per cent of all the water used in the world ...

Philip Ball

2000-01-27T23:59:59.000Z

495

Geothermal Direct Use | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

Direct Use Direct Use Jump to: navigation, search GEOTHERMAL ENERGYGeothermal Home Print PDF [edit] Geothermal Direct Use Geothermal Technologies There are many types of Geothermal Technologies that take advantage of the earth's heat: Hydrothermal Systems Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) Sedimentary Geothermal Systems Co-Produced Geothermal Systems Geothermal Direct Use Ground Source Heat Pumps Direct Use Links Related documents and websites EERE's Direct Use Report National Institute of Building Science's Whole Building Design Guide Policy Makers' Guidebook for Geothermal Heating and Cooling Dictionary.png Geothermal Direct Use: Low- to moderate-temperature water from geothermal reservoirs can be used to provide heat directly to buildings, or other applications that require

496

Un exemple de conversion d'une table de production en volume en tables de production en biomasse  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Un exemple de conversion d'une table de production en volume en tables de production en biomasse secteur ligérien, proposée par PARD? en 1962, est convertie en quatre tables de production en biomasse correspondant chacune à une partie de l'arbre ou à l'arbre entier, biomasse foliaire exclue. La conversion est

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

497

Section 4. Inventory Table of Contents  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Protections Level Name Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act National Environmental

498

FY 2012 Control Table by Organization  

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

2 Summary Control Table by Organization 2 Summary Control Table by Organization (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Current Congressional Annualized Congressional Approp. Request CR Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Organization Department Of Energy By Organization National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities * ............................................................................. 6,386,371 7,008,835 7,008,835 7,629,716 +620,881 +8.9% Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation * ...................................................... 2,131,382 2,687,167 2,136,709 2,549,492 -137,675 -5.1% Naval Reactors * ................................................................................... 945,133 1,070,486 945,133 1,153,662 +83,176 +7.8% Office of the Administrator * ................................................................. 410,754 448,267 410,754 450,060

499

Computers in Commercial Buildings - Table 2  

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

EIA Home > Commercial Home > Data Reports > EIA Home > Commercial Home > Data Reports > Computers in Commercial Buildings >Table 2 Table 2. Photocopiers in Commercial Buildings, 1999 Number of Buildings (thousand) Total Floorspace (million square feet) Number of Employees (thousand) Total Photocopiers (thousand) Photocopiers per Million Square Feet Photocopiers per Thousand Employees All Buildings 4,657 67,338 81,852 4,934 73 60 Principal Building Activity Education 327 8,651 8,927 433 50 48 Food Sales 174 994 980 41 42 42 Food Service 349 1,851 4,031 Q Q 26 Health Care 127 2,918 6,219 401 138 65 Inpatient 11 1,865 3,350 187 100 56 Outpatient 116 1,053 2,869 214 204 75 Lodging 153 4,521 2,356 78 17 33 Mercantile 667 10,398 11,384 526 51 46

500

FY 2007 Control Table by Organization  

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

Control Table by Organization Control Table by Organization (dollars in thousands - OMB Scoring) FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Current Current Congressional Approp. Approp. Request $ % Discretionary Summary By Organization National Security Weapons................................................................................. 6,625,542 6,369,597 6,407,889 +38,292 +0.6% Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.......................................... 1,507,966 1,614,839 1,726,213 +111,374 +6.9% Naval Reactors........................................................................ 801,437 781,605 795,133 +13,528 +1.7% Office of the Administrator...................................................... 363,350 338,450 386,576 +48,126 +14.2% Total, National Nuclear Security Administration........................ 9,298,295 9,104,491