National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for year sng production

  1. Development of a Hydrogasification Process for Co-Production of Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) and Electric Power from Western Coals

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sun, Xiaolei; Rink, Nancy

    2011-04-30

    This report presents the results of the research and development conducted on an Advanced Hydrogasification Process (AHP) conceived and developed by Arizona Public Service Company (APS) under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contract: DE-FC26-06NT42759 for Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) production from western coal. A double-wall (i.e., a hydrogasification contained within a pressure shell) down-flow hydrogasification reactor was designed, engineered, constructed, commissioned and operated by APS, Phoenix, AZ. The reactor is ASME-certified under Section VIII with a rating of 1150 pounds per square inch gage (psig) maximum allowable working pressure at 1950 degrees Fahrenheit ({degrees}F). The reaction zone had a 1.75 inch inner diameter and 13 feet length. The initial testing of a sub-bituminous coal demonstrated ~ 50% carbon conversion and ~10% methane yield in the product gas under 1625{degrees}F, 1000 psig pressure, with a 11 seconds (s) residence time, and 0.4 hydrogen-to-coal mass ratio. Liquid by-products mainly contained Benzene, Toluene, Xylene (BTX) and tar. Char collected from the bottom of the reactor had 9000-British thermal units per pound (Btu/lb) heating value. A three-dimensional (3D) computational fluid dynamic model simulation of the hydrodynamics around the reactor head was utilized to design the nozzles for injecting the hydrogen into the gasifier to optimize gas-solid mixing to achieve improved carbon conversion. The report also presents the evaluation of using algae for carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) management and biofuel production. Nannochloropsis, Selenastrum and Scenedesmus were determined to be the best algae strains for the project purpose and were studied in an outdoor system which included a 6-meter (6M) radius cultivator with a total surface area of 113 square meters (m{sup 2}) and a total culture volume between 10,000 to 15,000 liters (L); a CO{sub 2} on-demand feeding system; an on-line data collection system for temperature, p

  2. Sorption-Enhanced Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) Production from Syngas. A Novel Process Combining CO Methanation, Water-Gas Shift, and CO2 Capture

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lebarbier, Vanessa M.C.; Dagle, Robert A.; Kovarik, Libor; Albrecht, Karl O.; Li, Xiaohong S.; Li, Liyu; Taylor, Charles E.; Bao, Xinhe; Wang, Yong

    2013-07-08

    Synthetic natural gas (SNG) production from syngas is under investigation again due to the desire for less dependency from imports and the opportunity for increasing coal utilization and reducing green house gas emission. CO methanation is highly exothermic and substantial heat is liberated which can lead to process thermal imbalance and deactivation of the catalyst. As a result, conversion per pass is limited and substantial syngas recycle is employed in conventional processes. Furthermore, the conversion of syngas to SNG is typically performed at moderate temperatures (275 to 325°C) to ensure high CH4 yields since this reaction is thermodynamically limited. In this study, the effectiveness of a novel integrated process for the SNG production from syngas at high temperature (i.e. 600°C) was investigated. This integrated process consists of combining a CO methanation nickel-based catalyst with a high temperature CO2 capture sorbent in a single reactor. Integration with CO2 separation eliminates the reverse-water-gas shift and the requirement for a separate water-gas shift (WGS) unit. Easing of thermodynamic constraint offers the opportunity of enhancing yield to CH4 at higher operating temperature (500-700ºC) which also favors methanation kinetics and improves the overall process efficiency due to exploitation of reaction heat at higher temperatures. Furthermore, simultaneous CO2 capture eliminates green house gas emission. In this work, sorption-enhanced CO methanation was demonstrated using a mixture of a 68% CaO/32% MgAl2O4 sorbent and a CO methanation catalyst (Ni/Al2O3, Ni/MgAl2O4, or Ni/SiC) utilizing a syngas ratio (H2/CO) of 1, gas-hour-space velocity (GHSV) of 22 000 hr-1, pressure of 1 bar and a temperature of 600°C. These conditions resulted in ~90% yield to methane, which was maintained until the sorbent

  3. Development of a Hydrogasification Process for Co-Production of Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) and Electric Power from Western Coals-Phase I

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Raymond Hobbs

    2007-05-31

    The Advanced Hydrogasification Process (AHP)--conversion of coal to methane--is being developed through NETL with a DOE Grant and has successfully completed its first phase of development. The results so far are encouraging and have led to commitment by DOE/NETL to begin a second phase--bench scale reactor vessel testing, expanded engineering analysis and economic perspective review. During the next decade new means of generating electricity, and other forms of energy, will be introduced. The members of the AHP Team envision a need for expanded sources of natural gas or substitutes for natural gas, to fuel power generating plants. The initial work the team has completed on a process to use hydrogen to convert coal to methane (pipeline ready gas) shows promising potential. The Team has intentionally slanted its efforts toward the needs of US electric utilities, particularly on fuels that can be used near urban centers where the greatest need for new electric generation is found. The process, as it has evolved, would produce methane from coal by adding hydrogen. The process appears to be efficient using western coals for conversion to a highly sought after fuel with significantly reduced CO{sub 2} emissions. Utilities have a natural interest in the preservation of their industry, which will require a dramatic reduction in stack emissions and an increase in sustainable technologies. Utilities tend to rank long-term stable supplies of fuel higher than most industries and are willing to trade some ratio of cost for stability. The need for sustainability, stability and environmentally compatible production are key drivers in the formation and progression of the AHP development. In Phase II, the team will add a focus on water conservation to determine how the basic gasification process can be best integrated with all the plant components to minimize water consumption during SNG production. The process allows for several CO{sub 2} reduction options including consumption of

  4. Validation of the materials-process-product model (coal SNG). [Estimating method for comparing processes, changing assumptions and technology assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Albanese, A.; Bhagat, N.; Friend, L.; Lamontagne, J.; Pouder, R.; Vinjamuri, G.

    1980-03-01

    The use of coal as a source of high Btu gas is currently viewed as one possible means of supplementing dwindling natural gas supplies. While certain coal gasification processes have demonstrated technical feasibility, much uncertainty and inconsistency remains regarding the capital and operating costs of large scale coal conversion facilities; cost estimates may vary by as much as 50%. Studies conducted for the American Gas Association (AGA) and US Energy Research and Development Administration by C.F. Braun and Co. have defined technical specifications and cost guidelines for estimating costs of coal gasification technologies (AGA Guidelines). Based on the AGA Guidelines, Braun has also prepared cost estimates for selected coal gasification processes. Recent efforts by International Research and Technology Inc. (IR and T) have led to development of the Materials-Process-Product Model (MPPM), a comprehensive anaytic tool for evaluation of processes and costs for coal gasification and other coal conversion technologies. This validation of the MPPM presents a comparison of engineering and cost computation methodologies employed in the MPPM to those employed by Braun and comparison of MPPM results to Braun cost estimates. These comparisons indicate that the MPPM has the potential to be a valuable tool for assisting in the evaluation of coal gasification technologies.

  5. Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paulina Jaramillo; W. Michael Griffin; H. Scott Matthews

    2007-09-15

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that in the coming decades the United States' natural gas (NG) demand for electricity generation will increase. Estimates also suggest that NG supply will increasingly come from imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Additional supplies of NG could come domestically from the production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) via coal gasification-methanation. The objective of this study is to compare greenhouse gas (GHG), SOx, and NOx life-cycle emissions of electricity generated with NG/LNG/SNG and coal. This life-cycle comparison of air emissions from different fuels can help us better understand the advantages and disadvantages of using coal versus globally sourced NG for electricity generation. Our estimates suggest that with the current fleet of power plants, a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have lower GHG emissions than coal. If advanced technologies with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are used, however, coal and a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have very similar life-cycle GHG emissions. For SOx and NOx we find there are significant emissions in the upstream stages of the NG/LNG life-cycles, which contribute to a larger range in SOx and NOx emissions for NG/LNG than for coal and SNG. 38 refs., 3 figs., 2 tabs.

  6. Sorption-enhanced synthetic natural gas (SNG) production from...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    A novel process combining CO methanation, water-gas shift, and CO2 capture Citation ... A novel process combining CO methanation, water-gas shift, and CO2 capture Authors: ...

  7. Energy Production Over the Years | Department of Energy

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

    Production Over the Years Energy Production Over the Years US Energy Production Through the Years Click on each state to learn more about how much energy it produces Pick an energy source Total Energy Produced Coal Crude Oil Natural Gas Total Renewable Energy Non-Biofuel Renewable Energy Biofuels Nuclear Power Source: EIA State Energy Data Systems

  8. Six-Year Review of Covered Products

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This memorandum explains that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires the Department of Energy to re-evaluate efficiency standards for all covered appliances and products...

  9. US Energy Production over the Years Data | Department of Energy

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

    US Energy Production over the Years Data US Energy Production over the Years Data total_states_link.xlsx (93.19 KB) total_sectors_link.xls (44.5 KB) us_93_02_v3.json (437.85 KB) More Documents & Publications ESPC Project Performance: Supplemental Data Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Methodology Audit Report: OAS-FS-12-06

  10. Calendar Year 2008 Program Benefits for ENERGY STAR Labeled Products

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Homan, GregoryK; Sanchez, Marla; Brown, RichardE; Lai, Judy

    2010-08-24

    This paper presents current and projected savings for ENERGY STAR labeled products, and details the status of the model as implemented in the September 2009 spreadsheets. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary energy efficiency labeling program operated jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products, buildings and practices. Since the program inception in 1992, ENERGY STAR has become a leading international brand for energy efficient products, and currently labels more than thirty products, spanning office equipment, heating, cooling and ventilation equipment, commercial and residential lighting, home electronics, and major appliances. ENERGY STAR's central role in the development of regional, national and international energy programs necessitates an open process whereby its program achievements to date as well as projected future savings are shared with stakeholders. This report presents savings estimates for ENERGY STAR labeled products. We present estimates of energy, dollar, and carbon savings achieved by the program in the year 2008, annual forecasts for 2009 and 2010, and cumulative savings estimates for the period 1993 through 2008 and cumulative forecasts for the period 2009 through 2015. Through 2008 the program saved 8.8 Quads of primary energy and avoided the equivalent of 158 metric tones carbon (MtC). The forecast for the period 2009-2015 is 18.1 Quads or primary energy saved and 316 MtC emissions avoided. The sensitivity analysis bounds the best estimate of carbon avoided between 104 MtC and 213 MtC (1993 to 2008) and between 206 MtC and 444 MtC (2009 to 2015). In this report we address the following questions for ENERGY STAR labeled products: (1) How are ENERGY STAR impacts quantified; (2) What are the ENERGY STAR achievements; and (3) What are the limitations to our method?

  11. Calendar Year 2009 Program Benefits for ENERGY STAR Labeled Products

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Homan, Gregory K; Sanchez, Marla C.; Brown, Richard E.

    2010-11-15

    ENERGY STAR is a voluntary energy efficiency labeling program operated jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products, buildings and practices. Since the program inception in 1992, ENERGY STAR has become a leading international brand for energy efficient products, and currently labels more than thirty products, spanning office equipment, heating, cooling and ventilation equipment, commercial and residential lighting, home electronics, and major appliances. ENERGY STAR's central role in the development of regional, national and international energy programs necessitates an open process whereby its program achievements to date as well as projected future savings are shared with stakeholders. This report presents savings estimates from the use ENERGY STAR labeled products. We present estimates of energy, dollar, and carbon savings achieved by the program in the year 2009, annual forecasts for 2010 and 2011, and cumulative savings estimates for the period 1993 through 2009 and cumulative forecasts for the period 2010 through 2015. Through 2009 the program saved 9.5 Quads of primary energy and avoided the equivalent of 170 million metric tons carbon (MMTC). The forecast for the period 2009-2015 is 11.5 Quads or primary energy saved and 202 MMTC emissions avoided. The sensitivity analysis bounds the best estimate of carbon avoided between 110 MMTC and 231 MMTC (1993 to 2009) and between 130 MMTC and 285 MMTC (2010 to 2015).

  12. U.S. oil production expected to decline over next year, rebounding...

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

    9, 2015 U.S. oil production expected to decline over next year, rebounding in late 2016 U.S. monthly crude oil production is expected to decline through the middle of next year in ...

  13. Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years.

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect Journal Article: Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years. Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years. This article was requested by Cryogas International, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. At the title suggests, the article identifies hydrogen consumption in the U.S., broken out by the major contributors to total production. Explanatory

  14. U.S. Energy Production Through the Years | Department of Energy

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

    Energy Production Through the Years U.S. Energy Production Through the Years December 10, 2014 - 1:00pm Addthis US Energy Production Through the Years Click on each state to learn more about how much energy it produces Pick an energy source Total Energy Produced Coal Crude Oil Natural Gas Total Renewable Energy Non-Biofuel Renewable Energy Biofuels Nuclear Power Source: EIA State Energy Data Systems Daniel Wood Daniel Wood Data Visualization and Cartographic Specialist, Office of Public Affairs

  15. Calendar Year 2007 Program Benefits for ENERGY STAR Labeled Products

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sanchez, Marla Christine; Homan, Gregory; Brown, Richard

    2008-10-31

    ENERGY STAR is a voluntary energy efficiency-labeling program operated jointly by the United States Department of Energy and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Since the program inception in 1992, ENERGY STAR has become a leading international brand for energy efficient products. ENERGY STAR's central role in the development of regional, national, and international energy programs necessitates an open process whereby its program achievements to date as well as projected future savings are shared with committed stakeholders. Through 2007, the program saved 7.1 Quads of primary energy and avoided 128 MtC equivalent. The forecast shows that the program is expected to save 21.2 Quads of primary energy and avoid 375 MtC equivalent over the period 2008-2015. The sensitivity analysis bounds the best estimate of carbon avoided between 84 MtC and 172 MtC (1993 to 2007) and between 243 MtC and 519 MtC (2008 to 2015).

  16. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    69 YEAR 2014 Males 34 Females 35 YEAR 2014 SES 5 EJEK 1 EN 05 8 EN 04 5 NN (Engineering) 27 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 22 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska...

  17. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    42 YEAR 2014 Males 36 Females 6 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 2 EJEK 5 EN 05 7 EN 04 6 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 15 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 6 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male...

  18. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 YEAR 2012 Males 65 Females 29 YEAR 2012 SES 3 EJEK 5 EN 04 3 NN (Engineering) 21 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 61 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American...

  19. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 YEAR 2011 Males 21 Females 23 YEAR 2011 SES 3 EJEK 1 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 3 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 31 NU (TechAdmin Support) 5 YEAR 2011 American Indian Male 0 American...

  20. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    92 YEAR 2012 Males 52 Females 40 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EJEK 7 EN 04 13 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 27 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 38 NU (TechAdmin Support) 5 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0...

  1. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    558 YEAR 2013 Males 512 Females 46 YEAR 2013 SES 2 EJEK 2 EN 04 1 NN (Engineering) 11 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 220 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 321 YEAR 2013...

  2. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    11 YEAR 2012 Males 78 Females 33 YEAR 2012 SES 2 EJEK 9 EN 05 1 EN 04 33 NN (Engineering) 32 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 31 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 2...

  3. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    300 YEAR 2011 Males 109 Females 191 YEAR 2011 SES 9 EJEK 1 NN (Engineering) 2 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 203 NU (TechAdmin Support) 38 NF (Future Ldrs) 47 YEAR 2011 American Indian...

  4. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    02 YEAR 2011 Males 48 Females 54 YEAR 2011 SES 5 EJEK 1 NN (Engineering) 13 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 80 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2011 American Indian Male 0 American Indian...

  5. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 YEAR 2013 Males 27 Females 11 YEAR 2013 SES 1 EN 05 1 EN 04 11 NN (Engineering) 8 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 15 NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 YEAR 2013 American Indian Alaska Native Male...

  6. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    31 YEAR 2013 Males 20 Females 11 YEAR 2013 SES 2 EN 04 4 NN (Engineering) 12 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 12 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2013 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,...

  7. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    16 YEAR 2012 Males 84 Females 32 YEAR 2012 SES 26 EJEK 2 EN 05 9 NN (Engineering) 39 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 30 NU (TechAdmin Support) 10 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American...

  8. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    34 YEAR 2012 Males 66 Females 68 YEAR 2012 SES 6 NN (Engineering) 15 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 110 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 1 American Indian Female 2...

  9. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    86 YEAR 2012 Males 103 Females 183 YEAR 2012 SES 7 EJEK 1 NN (Engineering) 1 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 202 NU (TechAdmin Support) 30 NF (Future Ldrs) 45 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male...

  10. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    80 YEAR 2012 Males 51 Females 29 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EJEK 22 EN 04 21 NN (Engineering) 14 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 21 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American...

  11. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    1 YEAR 2012 Males 30 Females 11 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EN 05 1 EN 04 11 NN (Engineering) 9 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 17 NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American...

  12. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    96 YEAR 2013 Males 69 Females 27 YEAR 2013 SES 1 EJEK 9 EN 04 27 NN (Engineering) 26 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 30 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2013 American Indian Alaska Native Male...

  13. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    31 YEAR 2012 Males 19 Females 12 YEAR 2012 SES 2 EN 04 4 NN (Engineering) 12 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 12 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American Indian...

  14. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    0 YEAR 2013 Males 48 Females 32 YEAR 2013 SES 2 EJEK 7 EN 04 11 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 23 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 33 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2013 American Indian Alaska...

  15. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    40 YEAR 2011 Males 68 Females 72 YEAR 2011 SES 5 EJEK 1 NN (Engineering) 16 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 115 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2011 American Indian Male 1 American Indian...

  16. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    00 YEAR 2012 Males 48 Females 52 YEAR 2012 SES 5 EJEK 1 NN (Engineering) 11 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 80 NU (TechAdmin Support) 3 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American Indian...

  17. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    137 YEAR 2013 Males 90 Females 47 YEAR 2013 SES 2 SL 1 EJEK 30 EN 04 30 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 23 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 45 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 YEAR 2013 American Indian...

  18. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    of Employees 14 GENDER YEAR 2012 Males 9 Females 5 YEAR 2012 SES 2 EJEK 2 NN (Engineering) 4 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 6 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American Indian Female 0...

  19. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    3 YEAR 2012 Males 21 Females 22 YEAR 2012 SES 3 EJEK 1 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 3 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 30 NU (TechAdmin Support) 5 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 0 American...

  20. EIS-0002: Allocation of Petroleum Feedstock, Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., Sollers Point SNG Plant, Sollers Point, Baltimore County, MD

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Economic Regulatory Administration (ERA) developed this EIS to evaluate the social, economic and environmental impacts which may occur within the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) service area as a result of the ERA' s proposed decision to allocate up to 2,186,000 barrels per year of naphtha feedstock to BG&E to operate BG&E's existing synthetic natural gas facility located on Sollers Point in Baltimore County, Maryland.

  1. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Males 139 Females 88 YEAR 2012 SES 13 EX 1 EJEK 8 EN 05 23 EN 04 20 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 91 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 62 NU (TechAdmin Support) 7 YEAR 2012 American Indian...

  2. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    26 YEAR 2014 Males 81 Females 45 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 SL1 EJEK 25 EN 04 26 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 23 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 44 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 YEAR 2014 American ...

  3. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    563 YEAR 2012 Males 518 Females 45 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EJEK 2 EN 04 1 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 12 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 209 NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 335 YEAR 2012...

  4. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    7 YEAR 2012 Males 64 Females 33 YEAR 2012 SES 2 EJEK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 30 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 26 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 32 NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 YEAR 2012 American Indian...

  5. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 YEAR 2012 Males 37 Females 7 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EJEK 6 EN 05 5 EN 04 7 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 17 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 6 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male 2...

  6. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    7 YEAR 2011 Males 38 Females 9 YEAR 2011 SES 1 EJEK 6 EN 05 5 EN 04 7 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 19 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 7 NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 YEAR 2011 American Indian Male 2...

  7. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 YEAR 2013 Males 62 Females 26 YEAR 2013 SES 1 EJEK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 28 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 25 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 27 NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 YEAR 2013 American Indian...

  8. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    6 YEAR 2012 Males 64 Females 32 YEAR 2012 SES 1 EJEK 5 EN 05 3 EN 04 23 EN 03 9 NN (Engineering) 18 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 33 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 YEAR 2012 American Indian...

  9. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    5 YEAR 2013 Males 58 Females 27 YEAR 2013 SES 1 EJEK 4 EN 05 3 EN 04 21 EN 03 8 NN (Engineering) 16 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 28 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 YEAR 2013 American Indian...

  10. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    78 YEAR 2012 Males 57 Females 21 YEAR 2012 SES 2 SL 1 EJEK 12 EN 04 21 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 12 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 24 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 YEAR 2012 American Indian Male...

  11. Legend and legacy: Fifty years of defense production at the Hanford Site

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

    (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect Legend and legacy: Fifty years of defense production at the Hanford Site Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Legend and legacy: Fifty years of defense production at the Hanford Site × You are accessing a document from the Department of Energy's (DOE) SciTech Connect. This site is a product of DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and is provided as a public service. Visit OSTI to utilize additional information resources in

  12. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2012 Males 149 Females 115 YEAR 2012 SES 17 EX 1 EJEK 7 EN 05 2 EN 04 9 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 56 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 165 NU (TechAdmin Support) 4 GS 13 1 YEAR 2012 American...

  13. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    5 YEAR 2014 Males 61 Females 24 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EJ/EK 8 EN 04 22 NN (Engineering) 23 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 28 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 2 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 3 African American Male (AA M) 0 African American Female (AA F) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 3 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 13 Hispanic Female (H F) 10 White Male (W M) 43 White Female (W F) 11

  14. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2 YEAR 2014 Males 57 Females 25 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 3 EJ/EK 4 EN 04 2 NN (Engineering) 20 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 53 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 0 African American Male (AA M) 9 African American Female (AA F) 9 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 1 Hispanic Male (H M) 3 Hispanic Female (H F) 5 White Male (W M) 43 White Female (W F) 10 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE

  15. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    93 YEAR 2014 Males 50 Females 43 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 EJ/EK 3 NN (Engineering) 13 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 74 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 2 African American Male (AA M) 5 African American Female (AA F) 6 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 6 Hispanic Female (H F) 14 White Male (W M) 39 White Female (W F) 21 DIVERSITY

  16. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    YEAR 2014 Males 11 Females 2 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 2 EJ/EK 1 EN 04 1 NN (Engineering) 5 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 4 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 0 African American Male (AA M) 0 African American Female (AA F) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 10 White Female (W F) 2 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER

  17. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    9 YEAR 2014 Males 9 Females 10 YEAR 2014 SES 7 ED 1 EJ/EK 1 EN 05 1 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 8 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 1 African American Female (AA F) 5 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 3 White Male (W M) 7 White Female (W F) 1 PAY PLAN DIVERSITY TOTAL

  18. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    5 YEAR 2014 Males 92 Females 43 YEAR 2014 SES 8 EX 1 EJ/EK 4 EN 05 9 EN 04 12 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 57 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 42 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 1 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 9 African American Female (AA F) 11 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 4 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 2 Hispanic Male (H M) 12 Hispanic Female (H F) 7 White Male (W M) 66 White Female (W F) 22 PAY PLAN

  19. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    563 YEAR 2014 Males 517 Females 46 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 2 EJ/EK 2 EN 04 1 NN (Engineering) 11 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 218 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 327 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 14 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 2 African American Male (AA M) 18 African American Female (AA F) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 8 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 2 Hispanic Male (H M) 76 Hispanic Female (H F) 21 White Male

  20. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    89 YEAR 2014 Males 98 Females 91 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 14 EX 1 EJ/EK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 4 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 32 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 130 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 GS 15 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 1 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 0 African American Male (AA M) 5 African American Female (AA F) 14 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 3 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 7 Hispanic Male (H M) 7 Hispanic Female (H F) 10 White Male

  1. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    3 YEAR 2014 Males 162 Females 81 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 26 EJ/EK 3 EN 05 7 NN (Engineering) 77 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 108 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 22 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 5 African American Female (AA F) 9 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 2 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 154 White Female (W F)

  2. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    74 YEAR 2014 Males 96 Females 78 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 8 EJ/EK 4 EN 04 11 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 34 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 113 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 2 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 3 African American Female (AA F) 11 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 5 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 25 Hispanic Female (H F) 25 White Male (W M) 61 White

  3. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 YEAR 2014 Males 7 Females 7 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 7 GS 15 1 GS 14 2 GS 13 2 GS 10 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 0 African American Male (AA M) 3 African American Female (AA F) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 4 White Female (W F) 5 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER

  4. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    16 YEAR 2014 Males 72 Females 144 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 8 EJ/EK 1 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 198 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 9 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 2 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 2 African American Male (AA M) 10 African American Female (AA F) 38 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 3 Hispanic Male (H M) 15 Hispanic Female (H F) 33 White Male (W M) 44 White Female (W F) 68 DIVERSITY TOTAL

  5. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    26 YEAR 2014 Males 81 Females 45 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 SL 1 EJ/EK 25 EN 04 26 EN 03 2 NN (Engineering) 23 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 44 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 4 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 3 African American Female (AA F) 7 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 4 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 1 Hispanic Male (H M) 6 Hispanic Female (H F) 6 White Male (W M) 68 White

  6. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    446 YEAR 2014 Males 1626 Females 820 YEAR 2014 SES 97 EX 2 ED 1 SL 1 EJ/EK 84 EN 05 38 EN 04 162 EN 03 18 NN (Engineering) 427 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 1216 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 66 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 327 GS 15 2 GS 14 2 GS 13 2 GS 10 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 27 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 24 African American Male (AA M) 90 African American Female (AA F) 141 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 63 Asian American Pacific Islander Female

  7. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    1 YEAR 2014 Males 48 Females 33 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EJ/EK 8 EN 04 10 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 27 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 29 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 5 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 3 African American Male (AA M) 0 African American Female (AA F) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 12 Hispanic Female (H F) 12 White Male (W M) 34 White Female

  8. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 YEAR 2014 Males 18 Females 10 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EN 05 1 EN 04 4 NN (Engineering) 12 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 9 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 4 African American Female (AA F) 4 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 13 White Female (W F) 5

  9. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 YEAR 2014 Males 18 Females 20 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 3 EJ/EK 1 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 3 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 28 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 0 African American Male (AA M) 1 African American Female (AA F) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 1 Hispanic Male (H M) 4 Hispanic Female (H F) 7 White Male (W M) 13 White Female (W F) 11

  10. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    White Male (W M) 26 White Female (W F) 16 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER Livermore Field ... YEARS OF FEDERAL SERVICE SUPERVISOR RATIO AGE Livermore Field Office As of March 22, 2014 ...

  11. U.S. Domestic Oil Production Exceeds Imports for First Time in 18 Years |

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

    Department of Energy Domestic Oil Production Exceeds Imports for First Time in 18 Years U.S. Domestic Oil Production Exceeds Imports for First Time in 18 Years November 15, 2013 - 3:47pm Addthis Source: Energy Information Administration Short Term Energy Outlook. Chart by Daniel Wood. Allison Lantero Allison Lantero Digital Content Specialist, Office of Public Affairs In February 1995, The Brady Bunch Movie and Billy Madison were in movie theaters, "Creep" by TLC was at the top of

  12. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    25 Females 10 YEAR 2014 SES 1 EN 04 11 NN (Engineering) 8 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 13 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 0 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 1 African American Female (AA F) 3 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 0 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 0 Hispanic Female (H F) 0 White Male (W M) 24 White Female (W F) 6 TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER Kansas City

  13. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    9 Females 24 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EJ/EK 4 EN 05 3 EN 04 22 EN 03 8 NN (Engineering) 15 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 27 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 2 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 5 African American Female (AA F) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 21 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 2 Hispanic Male (H M) 5 Hispanic Female (H F) 3 White Male (W M) 26 White Female (W F) 16

  14. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    17 Females 18 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EJ/EK 3 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 30 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 1 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 2 African American Male (AA M) 3 African American Female (AA F) 7 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 1 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 0 Hispanic Male (H M) 2 Hispanic Female (H F) 6 White Male (W M) 10 White Female (W F) 3 DIVERSITY TOTAL WORKFORCE GENDER Associate

  15. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 Females 25 PAY PLAN YEAR 2014 SES 1 EJ/EK 3 EN 05 1 EN 04 25 EN 03 1 NN (Engineering) 25 NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 25 NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 YEAR 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN M) 1 American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN F) 1 African American Male (AA M) 3 African American Female (AA F) 3 Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI M) 2 Asian American Pacific Islander Female (AAPI F) 2 Hispanic Male (H M) 6 Hispanic Female (H F) 6 White Male (W M) 46 White Female (W F) 13

  16. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    -9.09% YEAR 2012 2013 SES 1 1 0.00% EN 05 1 1 0.00% EN 04 11 11 0.00% NN (Engineering) 8 8 0.00% NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 17 14 -17.65% NU (TechAdmin Support) 2 2...

  17. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Females 863 YEAR 2013 SES 102 EX 3 SL 1 EJEK 89 EN 05 41 EN 04 170 EN 03 18 NN (Engineering) 448 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 1249 NU (TechAdmin Support) 76 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 321...

  18. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Females 942 YEAR 2012 SES 108 EX 4 SL 1 EJEK 96 EN 05 45 EN 04 196 EN 03 20 NN (Engineering) 452 NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 1291 NU (TechAdmin Support) 106 NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 335...

  19. YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    YEAR 2012 2013 SES 2 1 -50.00% EN 05 0 1 100.00% EN 04 4 4 0.00% NN (Engineering) 13 12 -7.69% NQ (ProfTechAdmin) 13 9 -30.77% NU (TechAdmin Support) 1 1...

  20. Five Years of Cyclotron Radioisotope Production Experiences at the First PET-CT in Venezuela

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Colmenter, L.; Coelho, D.; Esteves, L. M.; Ruiz, N.; Morales, L.; Lugo, I.; Sajo-Bohus, L.; Liendo, J. A.; Greaves, E. D.; Barros, H.; Castillo, J.

    2007-10-26

    Five years operation of a compact cyclotron installed at PET-CT facility in Caracas, Venezuela is given. Production rate of {sup 18}F labeled FDG, operation and radiation monitoring experience are included. We conclude that {sup 18}FDG CT-PET is the most effective technique for patient diagnosis.

  1. Hydrogen Production and Consumption in the U.S.: The Last 25 Years.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brown, Daryl R.

    2015-09-01

    This article was requested by Cryogas International, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. At the title suggests, the article identifies hydrogen consumption in the U.S., broken out by the major contributors to total production. Explanatory information is provided describing the causes underlying the significant changes seen in the summary data.

  2. Deepwater royalty relief product of 3 1/2 year U.S. political effort

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Davis, R.E.; Neff, S.

    1996-04-01

    Against the backdrop of more than 20 years of increasingly stringent environmental regulation, ever-expanding exploration and development moratoria on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and reductions in producer tax incentives, oil and natural gas exploration companies active in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico recently won a significant legislative victory. On Nov. 28, 1995, President Clinton signed into law S.395, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Act. Title 3 of S.395 embodies the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act. This landmark legislation provides substantial incentives for oil and natural gas production in the gulf of Mexico by temporarily eliminating royalties on certain deepwater leases. It is the first direct incentive for oil and gas production enacted at the federal level in many years. This paper reviews the elements used to arrive at this successful legislation including the congressional leadership. It describes debates, cabinet level discussions, and use of parlimentary procedures.

  3. Investigations on catalyzed steam gasification of biomass. Appendix A. Feasibility study of methane production via catalytic gasification of 2000 tons of wood per day

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mudge, L.K.; Weber, S.L.; Mitchell, D.H.; Sealock, L.J. Jr.; Robertus, R.J.

    1981-01-01

    A study has been made of the economic feasibility of producing substitute natural gas (SNG) from wood via catalytic gasification with steam. The plant design in this study was developed from information on gasifier operation supplied by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL). The plant is designed to process 2000 tons per day of dry wood to SNG. Plant production is 21.6 MM scfd of SNG with a HHV of 956 Btu per scf. All process and support facilities necessary to convert wood to SNG are included. The plant location is Newport, Oregon. The capital cost for the plant is $95,115,000 - September, 1980 basis. Gas production costs which allow for return on capital have been calculated for various wood prices for both utility and private investor financing. For utility financing, the gas production costs are respectively $5.09, $5.56, $6.50, and $8.34 per MM Btu for wood costs of $5, $10, $20, and $40 per dry ton delivered to the plant at a moisture content of 49.50 wt %. For private investor financing, the corresponding product costs are $6.62, $7.11, $8.10, and $10.06 per MM Btu. The cost calculated by the utility financing method includes a return on equity of 15% and an interest rate of 10% on the debt. The private investor financing method, which is 100% equity financing, incorporates a discounted cash flow (DCF) return on equity of 12%. The thermal efficiency without taking an energy credit for by-product char is 58.3%.

  4. Isotope Production and Distribution Program`s Fiscal Year 1997 financial statement audit

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-03-27

    The Department of Energy Isotope Production and Distribution Program mission is to serve the national need for a reliable supply of isotope products and services for medicine, industry and research. The program produces and sells hundreds of stable and radioactive isotopes that are widely utilized by domestic and international customers. Isotopes are produced only where there is no U.S. private sector capability or other production capacity is insufficient to meet U.S. needs. The Department encourages private sector investment in new isotope production ventures and will sell or lease its existing facilities and inventories for commercial purposes. The Isotope Program reports to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The Isotope Program operates under a revolving fund established by the Fiscal Year (FY) 1990 Energy and Water Appropriations Act and maintains financial viability by earning revenues from the sale of isotopes and services and through annual appropriations. The FY 1995 Energy and Water Appropriations Act modified predecessor acts to allow prices charged for Isotope Program products and services to be based on production costs, market value, the needs of the research community, and other factors. Although the Isotope Program functions as a business, prices set for small-volume, high-cost isotopes that are needed for research purposes may not achieve full-cost recovery. As a result, isotopes produced by the Isotope Program for research and development are priced to provide a reasonable return to the U.S. Government without discouraging their use. Commercial isotopes are sold on a cost-recovery basis. Because of its pricing structure, when selecting isotopes for production, the Isotope Program must constantly balance current isotope demand, market conditions, and societal benefits with its determination to operate at the lowest possible cost to U.S. taxpayers. Thus, this report provides a financial analysis of this situation.

  5. Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System report: Navy fuel production in the year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hadder, G.R.; Davis, R.M.

    1991-09-01

    The Refinery Yield Model of the Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System has been used to study the feasibility and quality of Navy JP-5 jet fuel and F-76 marine diesel fuel for two scenarios in the year 2000. Both scenarios account for environmental regulations for fuels produced in the US and assume that Eastern Europe, the USSR, and the People`s Republic of China have free market economies. One scenario is based on business-as-usual market conditions for the year 2000. The second scenario is similar to first except that USSR crude oil production is 24 percent lower. During lower oil production in the USSR., there are no adverse effects on Navy fuel availability, but JP-5 is generally a poorer quality fuel relative to business-as-usual in the year 2000. In comparison with 1990, there are two potential problems areas for future Navy fuel quality. The first problem is increased aromaticity of domestically produced Navy fuels. Higher percentages of aromatics could have adverse effects on storage, handling, and combustion characteristics of both JP-5 and F-76. The second, and related, problem is that highly aromatic light cycle oils are blended into F-76 at percentages which promote fuel instability. It is recommended that the Navy continue to monitor the projected trend toward increased aromaticity in JP-5 and F-76 and high percentages of light cycle oils in F-76. These potential problems should be important considerations in research and development for future Navy engines.

  6. Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System report: Navy fuel production in the year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hadder, G.R.; Davis, R.M.

    1991-09-01

    The Refinery Yield Model of the Navy Mobility Fuels Forecasting System has been used to study the feasibility and quality of Navy JP-5 jet fuel and F-76 marine diesel fuel for two scenarios in the year 2000. Both scenarios account for environmental regulations for fuels produced in the US and assume that Eastern Europe, the USSR, and the People's Republic of China have free market economies. One scenario is based on business-as-usual market conditions for the year 2000. The second scenario is similar to first except that USSR crude oil production is 24 percent lower. During lower oil production in the USSR., there are no adverse effects on Navy fuel availability, but JP-5 is generally a poorer quality fuel relative to business-as-usual in the year 2000. In comparison with 1990, there are two potential problems areas for future Navy fuel quality. The first problem is increased aromaticity of domestically produced Navy fuels. Higher percentages of aromatics could have adverse effects on storage, handling, and combustion characteristics of both JP-5 and F-76. The second, and related, problem is that highly aromatic light cycle oils are blended into F-76 at percentages which promote fuel instability. It is recommended that the Navy continue to monitor the projected trend toward increased aromaticity in JP-5 and F-76 and high percentages of light cycle oils in F-76. These potential problems should be important considerations in research and development for future Navy engines.

  7. Post operational investigation of the recovered North East Frigg subsea production equipment after 10 year`s service

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Worley, L.J.; Fjaertoft, L.

    1995-12-31

    Elf Petroleum Norge had for 10 years been operating the North East Frigg field. This gas field was the first subsea field on the Norwegian Continental shelf. It was shut down on the 8th May 1993. Elf Petroleum Norge used the shut down as an ideal opportunity to review the performance of the subsea equipment. An investigation was initiated,its purpose, to gather information regarding the history, wear, effect of cathodic protection, corrosion etc from the X-mas tree components.

  8. Fuel Cell Technologies Office Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan - Section 3.1 Hydrogen Production

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

    Production Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan Page 3.1 - 1 3.1 Hydrogen Production Hydrogen can be produced from diverse energy resources, using a variety of process technologies. Energy resource options include fossil, nuclear, and renewables. Examples of process technologies include thermochemical, biological, electrolytic, and photolytic. 3.1.1 Technical Goal and Objectives Goal Research and develop technologies for low-cost, highly efficient hydrogen production from

  9. Fuel Cell Technologies Office Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan - Section 3.1 Hydrogen Production

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

    PRODUCTION SECTION Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan Page 3.1 - 1 3.1 Hydrogen Production Hydrogen can be produced from diverse energy resources, using a variety of process technologies. Energy resource options include fossil, nuclear, and renewables. Examples of process technologies include thermochemical, biological, electrolytic, and photolytic. 3.1.1 Technical Goal and Objectives Goal Research and develop technologies for low-cost, highly efficient hydrogen production

  10. Calendar Year 2007 Program Benefits for U.S. EPA Energy Star Labeled Products: Expanded Methodology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sanchez, Marla; Homan, Gregory; Lai, Judy; Brown, Richard

    2009-09-24

    This report provides a top-level summary of national savings achieved by the Energy Star voluntary product labeling program. To best quantify and analyze savings for all products, we developed a bottom-up product-based model. Each Energy Star product type is characterized by product-specific inputs that result in a product savings estimate. Our results show that through 2007, U.S. EPA Energy Star labeled products saved 5.5 Quads of primary energy and avoided 100 MtC of emissions. Although Energy Star-labeled products encompass over forty product types, only five of those product types accounted for 65percent of all Energy Star carbon reductions achieved to date, including (listed in order of savings magnitude)monitors, printers, residential light fixtures, televisions, and furnaces. The forecast shows that U.S. EPA?s program is expected to save 12.2 Quads of primary energy and avoid 215 MtC of emissions over the period of 2008?2015.

  11. Isotope production and distribution Programs Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 Financial Statement Audit (ER-FC-96-01)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-02-12

    The charter of the Department of Energy (DOE) Isotope Production and Distribution Program (Isotope Program) covers the production and sale of radioactive and stable isotopes, associated byproducts, surplus materials such as lithium and deuterium, and related isotope services. Services provided include, but are not limited to, irradiation services, target preparation and processing, source encapsulation and other special preparations, analyses, chemical separations, and leasing of stable isotopes for research purposes. Isotope Program products and services are sold worldwide for use in a wide variety of research, development, biomedical, and industrial applications. The Isotope Program reports to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The Isotope Program operates under a revolving fund, as established by the Fiscal Year 1990 Energy and Water Appropriations Act (Public Law 101-101). The Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriations Act (Public Law 103-316) modified predecessor acts to allow prices charged for Isotope Program products and services to be based on production costs, market value, the needs of the research community, and other factors. Prices set for small-volume, high-cost isotopes that are needed for research may not achieve full-cost recovery. Isotope Program costs are financed by revenues from the sale of isotopes and associated services and through payments from the isotope support decision unit, which was established in the DOE fiscal year 1995 Energy, Supply, Research, and Development appropriation. The isotope decision unit finances the production and processing of unprofitable isotopes that are vital to the national interest.

  12. Energy Independence and Security Act Six-Year Review of Covered Products

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This memorandum explains that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires the Department of Energy to re-evaluate efficiency standards for all covered appliances and products...

  13. Health, safety, and environmental risks from energy production: A year-long reality check

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oldenburg, C.M.

    2011-04-01

    Large-scale carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) offers the benefit of reducing CO{sub 2} emissions and thereby mitigating climate change risk, but it will also bring its own health, safety, and environmental risks. Curtis M. Oldenburg, Editor-in-Chief, considers these risks in the context of the broader picture of energy production. Over the last year, there have been major acute health, safety, and environmental (HSE) consequences related to accidents involving energy production from every major primary energy source. These are, in chronological order: (i) the Upper Big Branch (coal) Mine disaster, (ii) the Gulf of Mexico Macondo (oil) well blowout, (iii) the San Bruno (natural gas) pipeline leak and explosion, and (iv) the Fukushima (nuclear) reactor radioactivity releases. Briefly, the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster occurred in West Virginia on April 5, 2010, when natural methane in the mine ignited, causing the deaths of 29 miners, the worst coal mine disaster in the USA since 1970. Fifteen days later, the Macondo oil well in the Gulf of Mexico suffered a blowout, with a gas explosion and fire on the floating drilling platform that killed 11 people. The oil and gas continued to flow out of the well at the seafloor until July 15, 2010, spilling a total of approximately 5 million barrels of oil into the sea. On September 9, 2010, a 30-inch (76-cm) buried, steel, natural gas pipeline in San Bruno, California, leaked gas and exploded in a residential neighborhood, killing 8 people in their homes and burning a total of 38 homes. Flames were up to 1000 ft (300 m) high, and the initial explosion itself reportedly measured 1.1 on the Richter scale. Finally, on March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake off the coast of Japan's main island, Honshu, caused a tsunami that crippled the backup power and associated cooling systems for six reactor cores and their spent fuel storage tanks at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. At time of writing, workers trying to bring

  14. Plutonium: The first 50 years. United States plutonium production, acquisition, and utilization from 1944 through 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-02-01

    The report contains important newly declassified information regarding the US production, acquisition, and removals of plutonium. This new information, when combined with previously declassified data, has allowed the DOE to issue, for the first time, a truly comprehensive report on the total DOE plutonium inventory. At the December 7, 1993, Openness Press Conference, the DOE declassified the plutonium inventories at eight locations totaling 33.5 metric tons (MT). This report declassifies the remainder of the DOE plutonium inventory. Newly declassified in this report is the quantity of plutonium at the Pantex Site, near Amarillo, Texas, and in the US nuclear weapons stockpile of 66.1 MT, which, when added to the previously released inventory of 33.5 MT, yields a total plutonium inventory of 99.5 MT. This report will document the sources which built up the plutonium inventory as well as the transactions which have removed plutonium from that inventory. This report identifies four sources that add plutonium to the DOE/DoD inventory, and seven types of transactions which remove plutonium from the DOE/DoD inventory. This report also discusses the nuclear material control and accountability system which records all nuclear material transactions, compares records with inventory and calculates material balances, and analyzes differences to verify that nuclear materials are in quantities as reported. The DOE believes that this report will aid in discussions in plutonium storage, safety, and security with stakeholders as well as encourage other nations to declassify and release similar data. These data will also be available for formulating policies with respect to disposition of excess nuclear materials. The information in this report is based on the evaluation of available records. The information contained in this report may be updated or revised in the future should additional or more detailed data become available.

  15. Audit Report - Department of Energy's Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications Program's Fiscal Year 2010 Balance Sheet Audit, OAS-FS-13-09

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

    Audits and Inspections Audit Report Department of Energy's Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications Program's Fiscal Year 2010 Balance Sheet Audit OAS-FS-13-09 January 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE FROM: Daniel M. Weeber Assistant Inspector General for Office of Inspector General SUBJECT: INFORMATION Production for Research and Applications Program's Fiscal Year 2010 Balance Sheet Audit The attached report presents the results of the independent

  16. Production

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Algae production R&D focuses on exploring resource use and availability, algal biomass development and improvements, characterizing algal biomass components, and the ecology and engineering of cultivation systems.

  17. Management Letter on the Department of Energy's Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications Program's Fiscal Year 2009 Balance Sheet Audit, OAS-FS-12-09

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

    Department of Energy's Isotope Development and Production for Research and Applications Program's Fiscal Year 2009 Balance Sheet Audit OAS-FS-12-09 June 2012 January 30, 2012 Mr. Gregory Friedman, Inspector General Dr. Jehanne Gillo, Director, Facilities and Project Management Division, Office of Nuclear Physics U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Dear Mr. Friedman and Dr. Gillo: We have audited the balance sheet of the United States Department of Energy's (Department or DOE) Isotope

  18. Eastern States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Eastern States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 2 -...

  19. Pennsylvania Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1 1 65...

  20. Arkansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 94 279 527 2010's...

  1. Michigan Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 148 122 132...

  2. North Dakota Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) North Dakota Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3 3 25...

  3. Kentucky Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Kentucky Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 2 5 2010's 4 4...

  4. Colorado Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Colorado Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 1 2010's 1 3...

  5. Kansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Kansas Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1 3 1 - No Data...

  6. Louisiana--North Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana--North Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1...

  7. Louisiana--South Onshore Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet...

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

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana--South Onshore Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  8. New Mexico--West Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--West Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 1 ...

  9. New Mexico--West Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--West Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's ...

  10. New Mexico--East Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--East Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 2 0 1 ...

  11. New Mexico--East Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico--East Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's ...

  12. Analysis of the structural parameters that influence gas production from the Devonian shale. Annual progress report, 1979-1980. Volume III. Data repository and reports published during fiscal year 1979-1980: production, unsponsored research

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Negus-De Wys, J.; Dixon, J. M.; Evans, M. A.; Lee, K. D.; Ruotsala, J. E.; Wilson, T. H.; Williams, R. T.

    1980-10-01

    This document consists of the following papers: inorganic geochemistry studies of the Eastern Kentucky Gas Field; lithology studies of upper Devonian well cuttings in the Eastern Kentucky Gas Field; possible effects of plate tectonics on the Appalachian Devonian black shale production in eastern Kentucky; preliminary depositional model for upper Devonian Huron age organic black shale in the Eastern Kentucky Gas Field; the anatomy of a large Devonian black shale gas field; the Cottageville (Mount Alto) Gas Field, Jackson County, West Virginia: a case study of Devonian shale gas production; the Eastern Kentucky Gas Field: a geological study of the relationships of Ohio Shale gas occurrences to structure, stratigraphy, lithology, and inorganic geochemical parameters; and a statistical analysis of geochemical data for the Eastern Kentucky Gas Field.

  13. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2 40 -4.76% YEAR 2013 2014 Males 37 35 -5.41% Females 5 5 0% YEAR 2013 2014 SES 2 2 0% EJEK 5 4 -20.00% EN 05 5 7 40.00% EN 04 6 6 0% EN 03 1 1 0% NN...

  14. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    79 67 -15.19% YEAR 2013 2014 Males 44 34 -22.73% Females 35 33 -5.71% YEAR 2013 2014 SES 6 4 -33.33% EJEK 1 1 0% EN 05 9 8 -11.11% EN 04 6 5 -16.67% NN...

  15. Separation of flue-gas scrubber sludge into marketable products. Fourth year, first quarterly technical progress report, September 1, 1996--December 31, 1996 (Quarter No. 13)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kawatra, S.K.; Eisele, T.C.

    1996-12-01

    To reduce their sulfur emissions, many coal-fired electric power plants use wet flue-gas scrubbers. These scrubbers convert sulfur oxides into solid sulfate and sulfite sludge, which must then be disposed of. This sludge is a result of reacting limestone with sulfur dioxide to precipitate calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate. It consists of calcium sulfite (CaSO{sub 3}{circ}0.5H{sub 2}O), gypsum (CaSO{sub 4}{circ}2H{sub 2}O), and unreacted limestone (CaCO{sub 3}) or lime (Ca(OH)2), with miscellaneous objectionable impurities such as iron oxides, silicates, and magnesium, sodium, and potassium oxides or salts. These impurities prevent many sludges from being utilized as a replacement for natural gypsum, and as a result they must be disposed of in landfills, which presents a serious disposal problem. Knowledge of scrubber sludge characteristics is necessary for the development of purification technologies which will make it possible to directly utilize scrubber sludges rather than landfilling them. This project is studying the use of minimal-reagent froth flotation as the purification process, using the surface properties of the particles of unreacted limestone to remove them and their associated impurities from the material, leaving a purified calcium sulfite/gypsum product.

  16. The flash pyrolysis and methanolysis of biomass (wood) for production of ethylene, benzene and methanol

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Steinberg, M.; Fallon, P.T.; Sundaram, M.S.

    1990-02-01

    The process chemistry of the flash pyrolysis of biomass (wood) with the reactive gases, H{sub 2} and CH{sub 4} and with the non-reactive gases He and N{sub 2} is being determined in a 1 in. downflow tubular reactor at pressures from 20 to 1000 psi and temperatures from 600 to 1000{degrees}C. With hydrogen, flash hydropyrolysis leads to high yields of methane and CO which can be used for SNG and methanol fuel production. With methane, flash methanolysis leads to high yields of ethylene, benzene and CO which can be used for the production of valuable chemical feedstocks and methanol transportation fuel. At reactor conditions of 50 psi and 1000{degrees}C and approximately 1 sec residence time, the yields based on pine wood carbon conversion are up to 25% for ethylene, 25% for benzene, and 45% for CO, indicating that over 90% of the carbon in pine is converted to valuable products. Pine wood produces higher yields of hydrocarbon products than Douglas fir wood; the yield of ethylene is 2.3 times higher with methane than with helium or nitrogen, and for pine, the ratio is 7.5 times higher. The mechanism appears to be a free radical reaction between CH{sub 4} and the pyrolyzed wood. There appears to be no net production or consumption of methane. A preliminary process design and analysis indicates a potentially economical competitive system for the production of ethylene, benzene and methanol based on the methanolysis of wood. 10 refs., 18 figs., 1 tab.

  17. Long-Term Demonstration of Hydrogen Production from Coal at Elevated Temperatures Year 6 - Activity 1.12 - Development of a National Center for Hydrogen Technology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stanislowski, Joshua; Tolbert, Scott; Curran, Tyler; Swanson, Michael

    2012-04-30

    The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) has continued the work of the National Center for Hydrogen Technology® (NCHT®) Program Year 6 Task 1.12 project to expose hydrogen separation membranes to coal-derived syngas. In this follow-on project, the EERC has exposed two membranes to coal-derived syngas produced in the pilot-scale transport reactor development unit (TRDU). Western Research Institute (WRI), with funding from the State of Wyoming Clean Coal Technology Program and the North Dakota Industrial Commission, contracted with the EERC to conduct testing of WRI’s coal-upgrading/gasification technology for subbituminous and lignite coals in the EERC’s TRDU. This gasifier fires nominally 200–500 lb/hour of fuel and is the pilot-scale version of the full-scale gasifier currently being constructed in Kemper County, Mississippi. A slipstream of the syngas was used to demonstrate warm-gas cleanup and hydrogen separation using membrane technology. Two membranes were exposed to coal-derived syngas, and the impact of coal-derived impurities was evaluated. This report summarizes the performance of WRI’s patent-pending coalupgrading/ gasification technology in the EERC’s TRDU and presents the results of the warm-gas cleanup and hydrogen separation tests. Overall, the WRI coal-upgrading/gasification technology was shown to produce a syngas significantly lower in CO2 content and significantly higher in CO content than syngas produced from the raw fuels. Warm-gas cleanup technologies were shown to be capable of reducing sulfur in the syngas to 1 ppm. Each of the membranes tested was able to produce at least 2 lb/day of hydrogen from coal-derived syngas.

  18. Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  19. Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic...

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

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  20. Mississippi (with State off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi (with State off) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  1. Kansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves Based Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Kansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  2. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  3. 2015 Domestic Uranium Production Report

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

    and Development Drilling","Mine Production of Uranium ","Uranium Concentrate Production ","Uranium Concentrate Shipments ","Employment " "Year","Drilling (million feet)"," ...

  4. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    7 35 -5.41% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 27 25 -7.41% ↓ Females 10 10 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 1 0% / EN 05 1 1 0% / EN 04 11 10 -9.09% ↓ NN (Engineering) 8 8 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 14 15 7.14% ↑ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 0 -100% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 1 1 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 3 3 0% / Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 0 0 0% /

  5. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    5 79 -7.06% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 59 57 -3.39% ↓ Females 26 22 -15.38% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 0 -100% ↓ EJ/EK 4 3 -25.00% ↓ EN 05 3 2 -33.33% ↓ EN 04 22 22 0% / EN 03 8 8 0% / NN (Engineering) 16 15 -6.25% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 28 26 -7.14% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 3 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 2 2 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 5 4 -20.00% ↓ African American Female (AA,F) 3 2

  6. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    91 81 -10.99% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 67 56 -16.42% ↓ Females 24 25 4.17% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 2 100% ↑ EJ/EK 9 8 -11.11% ↓ EN 04 25 22 -12.00% ↓ NN (Engineering) 24 20 -16.67% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 29 26 -10.34% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 3 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 2 2 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 3 3 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 0 0 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 0 0 0% / Asian American Pacific Islander

  7. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    21 -4.55% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 10 8 -20.00% ↓ Females 12 13 8.33% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 10 7 -30.00% ↓ EX 0 2 100% ↑ EJ/EK 1 1 0% / EN 05 0 1 100% ↑ EN 04 0 1 100% ↑ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 9 8 -11.11% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 1 0% / ED 00 1 0 -100% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 2 1 -50.00% ↓ African American Male (AA,M) 1 1 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 5 4 -20.00% ↓ Asian

  8. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    41 155 9.93% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 92 106 15.22% ↑ Females 49 49 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 SES 8 8 0% / EX 1 1 0% / EJ/EK 4 4 0% / EN 05 11 10 -9.09% ↓ EN 04 11 14 27.27% ↑ EN 03 2 5 150% ↑ NN (Engineering) 60 63 5.00% ↑ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 44 50 13.64% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 1 1 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 7 10 42.86% ↑ African American Female (AA,F) 13 11 -15.38% ↓ Asian American

  9. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    563 560 -0.53% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 518 514 -0.77% ↓ Females 45 46 2.22% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 2 2 0% / EJ/EK 2 2 0% / EN 04 1 1 0% / NN (Engineering) 11 11 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 218 221 1.38% ↑ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 2 100% ↑ NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 328 321 -2.13% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 15 15 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 2 2 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 19 18 -5.26% ↓ African American Female (AA,F) 1 1 0% /

  10. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    97 180 -8.63% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 105 89 -15.24% ↓ Females 92 91 -1.09% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 14 13 -7.14% ↓ EX 1 1 0% / EJ/EK 3 3 0% / EN 05 1 1 0% / EN 04 4 2 -50.00% ↓ EN 03 1 1 0% / EN 00 0 3 100% ↑ NN (Engineering) 35 27 -22.86% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 135 126 -6.67% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 2 0% / GS 15 0 1 100% ↑ GS 13 1 0 -100% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 2 1 -50.00% ↓ American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 0 0 0% /

  11. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    *Total number of Employees 122 112 -8.20% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 90 84 -6.67% ↓ Females 32 28 -12.50% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 26 24 -7.69% ↓ EJ/EK 3 3 0% / EN 05 8 9 12.50% ↑ NN (Engineering) 48 47 -2.08% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 30 26 -13.33% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 7 3 -57.14% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 3 3 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 7 6 -14.29%

  12. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 79 -5.95% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 59 55 -6.78% ↓ Females 25 24 -4.00% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 3 3 0% / EJ/EK 4 4 0% / EN 04 2 1 -50.00% ↓ NN (Engineering) 20 20 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 55 51 -7.27% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 0 0 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 10 10 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 9 8 -11.11% ↓ Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 2 2 0% / Asian American Pacific

  13. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 87 -1.14% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 46 46 0% / Females 42 41 -2.38% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 0 -100% ↓ EJ/EK 4 2 -50.00% ↓ NN (Engineering) 12 12 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 68 70 2.94% ↑ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 3 3 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 2 2 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 5 5 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 5 6 20.00% ↑ Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 0 0 0% / Asian

  14. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    1 14 27.27% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 9 12 33.33% ↑ Females 2 2 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 SES 2 2 0% / EJ/EK 1 1 0% / EN 04 0 1 100% ↑ EN 00 0 1 100% ↑ NN (Engineering) 5 5 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 3 4 33.33% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 0 0 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 0 0 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 0 0 0% / Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 1 1 0% / Asian American Pacific

  15. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    79 164 -8.38% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 100 92 -8.00% ↓ Females 79 72 -8.86% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 8 8 0% / EJ/EK 4 3 -25.00% ↓ EN 04 11 11 0% / EN 03 1 1 0% / EN 00 0 2 100% ↑ NN (Engineering) 39 32 -17.95% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 111 104 -6.31% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 5 3 -40.00% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 1 2 100% ↑ American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 2 1 -50.00% ↓ African American Male (AA,M) 4 3 -25.00% ↓ African American

  16. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    40 36 -10.00% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 18 18 0% / Females 22 18 -18.18% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 3 2 -33.33% ↓ EJ/EK 1 1 0% / EN 03 1 1 0% / NN (Engineering) 3 3 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 30 27 -10.00% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 2 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 0 0 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 1 1 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 1 1 0% / Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 0 0 0% /

  17. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    4 30 -11.76% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 16 14 -12.50% ↓ Females 18 16 -11.11% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 1 0% / EJ/EK 3 1 -66.67% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 29 27 -6.90% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 1 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 1 1 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 2 2 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 3 3 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 7 6 -14.29% ↓ Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 1 1 0% / Asian American Pacific Islander

  18. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    9 209 -8.73% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 76 76 0% / Females 153 133 -13.07% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 9 6 -33.33% ↓ EJ/EK 1 1 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 208 194 -6.73% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 11 8 -27.27% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 2 2 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 3 2 -33.33% ↓ African American Male (AA,M) 10 10 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 39 36 -7.69% ↓ Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 1 1 0% / Asian American

  19. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    7 80 -8.05% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 62 57 -8.06% ↓ Females 25 23 -8.00% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 1 0% / EJ/EK 3 3 0% / EN 05 1 1 0% / EN 04 27 24 -11.11% ↓ EN 03 1 0 -100% ↓ NN (Engineering) 26 25 -3.85% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 26 24 -7.69% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 2 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 1 1 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 3 2 -33.33% ↓ African American Female (AA,F) 3 3 0% / Asian

  20. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    502 2381 -4.84% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 1663 1593 -4.21% ↓ Females 839 788 -6.08% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 104 90 -13.46% ↓ EX 2 4 100% ↑ SL 1 0 -100% ↓ EJ/EK 88 73 -17.05% ↓ EN 05 40 41 2.50% ↑ EN 04 169 157 -7.10% ↓ EN 03 18 21 100% ↑ EN 00 0 6 100% ↑ NN (Engineering) 441 416 -5.67% ↓ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 1239 1190 -3.95% ↓ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 66 57 -13.64% ↓ NV (Nuc Mat Courier) 328 321 -2.13% ↓ GS 15 1 2 100% ↑ GS 13 2 2 0% / GS 10 3 1 -66.67% ↓ YEAR 2013

  1. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    80 83 3.75% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 48 50 4.17% ↑ Females 32 33 3.13% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 SES 2 1 -50.00% ↓ EJ/EK 8 7 -12.50% ↓ EN 04 11 9 -18.18% ↓ EN 03 1 1 0% / NN (Engineering) 24 27 12.50% ↑ NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 32 33 3.13% ↑ NU (Tech/Admin Support) 2 5 150% ↑ YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 3 3 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 0 0 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 2 2 0% / Asian American

  2. Y YEAR

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    8 27 -3.57% ↓ YEAR 2013 2014 Males 18 17 -5.56% ↓ Females 10 10 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 SES 1 1 0% / EN 05 1 1 0% / EN 04 4 3 -25.00% ↓ NN (Engineering) 12 12 0% / NQ (Prof/Tech/Admin) 9 9 0% / NU (Tech/Admin Support) 1 1 0% / YEAR 2013 2014 American Indian Alaska Native Male (AIAN,M) 0 0 0% / American Indian Alaskan Native Female (AIAN,F) 1 1 0% / African American Male (AA,M) 4 4 0% / African American Female (AA,F) 3 4 33.33% ↑ Asian American Pacific Islander Male (AAPI,M) 1 1 0% / Asian

  3. Utah Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Utah Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  4. Alabama--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million...

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 ...

  5. Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million...

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 ...

  6. Year Modules

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

    Annual photovoltaic module shipments, 2004-2014 (peak kilowatts) Year Modules 2004 143,274 2005 204,996 2006 320,208 2007 494,148 2008 920,693 2009 1,188,879 2010 2,644,498 2011 3,772,075 2012 4,655,005 2013 4,984,881 2014 6,237,524 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, 'Annual Photovoltaic Cell/Module Shipments Report.' Note: Includes both U.S. Shipments and Exports.

  7. Year Modules

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

    dollars per peak watt) Year Modules 2004 $2.99 2005 $3.19 2006 $3.50 2007 $3.37 2008 $3.49 2009 $2.79 2010 $1.96 2011 $1.59 2012 $1.15 2013 $0.75 2014 $0.87 Table 4. Average value of photovoltaic modules, 2004-2014 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, 'Annual Photovoltaic Cell/Module Shipments Report.' Note: Dollars are not adjusted for inflation.

  8. Montana Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead...

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

    Montana Quantity of Production Associated with Reported Wellhead Value (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's ...

  9. Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production,...

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

    Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  10. Alabama (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Alabama (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 - No Data...

  11. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 267 266...

  12. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Production (Billion...

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

    (Billion Cubic Feet) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  13. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Production...

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

    (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas Liquids Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  14. Ohio Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Ohio Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 14...

  15. Michigan Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Michigan Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  16. Louisiana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  17. Kentucky Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Kentucky Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  18. Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Mississippi Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  19. Florida Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Florida Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  20. Montana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  1. Alaska Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Alaska Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  2. Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  3. Wyoming Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Wyoming Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  4. Colorado Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Colorado Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  5. Alabama Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

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

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Alabama Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  6. Federal Offshore--Alabama Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million...

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Federal Offshore--Alabama Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 ...

  7. Federal Offshore--Louisiana Natural Gas Marketed Production ...

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

    Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Federal Offshore--Louisiana Natural Gas Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 ...

  8. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  9. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 ...

  10. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 ...

  11. Miscellaneous States Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Miscellaneous States Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  12. U.S. Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) U.S. Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  13. HPSS Yearly Network Traffic

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

    HPSS Yearly Network Traffic HPSS Yearly Network Traffic Yearly Summary of IO Traffic Between Storage and Network Destinations These bar charts show the total transfer traffic for...

  14. Western States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Western States Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Gas Production

  15. Alabama--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic...

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

    State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  16. U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves...

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

    Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) U.S. Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Estimated Production from Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  17. HPSS Yearly Network Traffic

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

    HPSS Yearly Network Traffic HPSS Yearly Network Traffic Yearly Summary of I/O Traffic Between Storage and Network Destinations These bar charts show the total transfer traffic for each year between storage and network destinations (systems within and outside of NERSC). Traffic for the current year is an estimate derived by scaling the known months traffic up to 12 months. The years shown are calendar years. The first graph shows the overall growth in network traffic to storage over the years.

  18. LNG to the year 2000

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Davenport, S.T.

    1984-04-01

    By 2000, about 190 MM metric-tpy of LNG will be moving in world trade, with Asia-Pacific as the dominant producer By the year 2000, approximately 190 million metric tons per year of LNG will be moving in worldwide trade. Production of LNG will be spread throughout most of the world, with Asia-Pacific as the dominant producer. LNG will be delivered only to the heavily industrialized areas of North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. The success of any LNG project will be dependent on its individual economics, market needs, financial planning, and governmental permit processes. We hope industry will be able to put together the LNG projects required to meet the quanitities of production forecast here for the year 2000.

  19. Webtrends Archives by Fiscal Year — Publication Library

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    From the EERE Web Statistics Archive: Corporate sites, Webtrends archives for the EERE Publication and Product Library by fiscal year.

  20. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  1. Montana Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Montana Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 12 13 7 2010's 13 13 16 19 42 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Montana Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale

  2. Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 3 3 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Virginia Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale Gas

  3. Wyoming Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Wyoming Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 7 102 29 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Wyoming Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Shale Gas

  4. 50 Years of Space

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

    50 Years of Space science-innovationassetsimagesicon-science.jpg 50 Years of Space Since 1943, some of the world's smartest and most dedicated technical people have ...

  5. Offshore Development and Production

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    1999-01-01

    Natural gas production in the federal offshore has increased substantially in recent years, gaining more than 400 billion cubic feet between 1993 and 1997 to a level of 5.14 trillion cubic feet.

  6. Hydrogen Production and Purification from Coal and Other Heavy...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Hydrogen Production and Purification from Coal and Other Heavy Feedstocks Year 6 - ... Title: Hydrogen Production and Purification from Coal and Other Heavy Feedstocks Year 6 - ...

  7. Louisiana - South Onshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana - South Onshore Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  8. Lower 48 States Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  9. New Mexico - West Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico - West Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  10. New Mexico - East Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) New Mexico - East Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  11. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  12. NNSA Production Office | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Us Our Operations Management and Budget Office of Civil Rights Workforce Statistics NNSA Production Office NNSA Production Office FY15 Year End Report Semi Annual...

  13. Oklahoma Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 40 168 249 2010's 403 476 637 698 869 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Oklahoma Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and

  14. West Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) West Virginia Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 11 2010's 80 192 345 498 869 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production West Virginia Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes,

  15. New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 ...

  16. New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production...

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

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 ...

  17. CALiPER Year in Review 2012

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2012-12-10

    The CALiPER program has tested more than 500 products since its inception in 2006, revealing a variety of performance trends, holding manufacturers accountable for claims, and identifying concerns that limit adoption. Over the past six years, the LED marketplace has changed substantially; previously relegated to niche status, LED products are now a viable alternative in many product categories and market share is expected to grow rapidly. This document summarizes recent testing results and provides an overview of multiyear trends.

  18. 70 years after Trinity

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

    70 years after Trinity 70 years after Trinity Though the world has seen many changes since Trinity, one thing has remained constant: Los Alamos remains essential to our nation's ...

  19. Secretary Moniz's First Year

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    We're looking back at some of the biggest moments from Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz's first year in office.

  20. Fiscal Year Ended

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

    Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2014 Report to Congress July 2016 United States Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Department of Energy | July 2016 Report on Uncosted Balances for Fiscal Year Ended 2014| Page iii Executive Summary As required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486), the Department of Energy is submitting a Report on Uncosted Balances for Fiscal Year Ended 2014. This report presents the results of the Department's annual analysis of uncosted obligation

  1. 2013 Year in Review

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

    3 Year in Review i 2013 YIR May 2014 Year-in-Review: 2013 Energy Infrastructure Events and Expansions Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability U.S. Department of Energy DOE / 2013 Year in Review ii 2013 YIR For Further Information This report was prepared by the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability under the direction of Patricia Hoffman, Assistant Secretary, and William Bryan, Deputy Assistant Secretary. Specific

  2. Agency Improvement Plan For Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year...

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

    Agency Improvement Plan For Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year 2007 Agency Improvement Plan For Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Energy Report and Agency ...

  3. GreenBuy Award Winners By Fiscal Year

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

    By Fiscal Year FY2015 GreenBuy Award Winners Site Name Award Products Categories Argonne National Lab (2 nd yr) Gold 13 products5 categories Brookhaven National Lab Gold 11 ...

  4. Final Year Project Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hubsch, Tristan

    2013-06-20

    In the last years of this eighteen-year grant project, the research efforts have focused mostly on the study of off-shell representations of supersymmetry, both on the worldline and on the world- sheet, i.e., both in supersymmetric quantum mechanics and in supersymmetric field theory in 1+1-dimensional spacetime.

  5. The Availability and Price of Petroleum and Petroleum Products...

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

    boosted global liquid fuels production relative to year-ago levels. However, OPEC crude oil production decreased slightly from year-ago levels, as production gains in Libya and...

  6. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 469 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Utah-Wyoming

  7. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Kansas

  8. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Utah (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 34 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Utah

  9. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 7 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Oklahoma

  10. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 12 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Texas

  11. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 27 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-Wyoming

  12. New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  13. New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  14. Allocation Year Rollover process

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

    Allocatio Year Rollover process Allocation Year Rollover process December 23, 2013 by Francesca Verdier Allocation Year 2013 (AY13) ends at 23:59:59 on Monday, January 13, 2014. AY14 runs from Tuesday, January 14, 2014 through Monday, January 12, 2015. The major features of the rollover are: charging acroess the AY boundary: All batch jobs will continue running during the rollover. Time accrued before midnight will be charged to AY13 repos; time accrued after midnight will be charged to AY14

  15. Texas - RRC District 9 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 9 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  16. Texas - RRC District 10 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 10 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  17. Texas - RRC District 8 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production...

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

    Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas - RRC District 8 Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  18. Welcome Year in Review

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Training Meeting Orlando, Florida-May 23-25, 2006 Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy & the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Welcome & Year In Review Peter Dessaules...

  19. Year 2000 awareness

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Holmes, C.

    1997-11-01

    This report contains viewgraphs on the challenges business face with the year 2000 software problem. Estimates, roadmaps, virtual factory software, current awareness, and world wide web references are given.

  20. Name Address Place Zip Sector Product Stock Symbol Year founded...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Energy Inc Suite Inco Innovation Centre Memorial University of Newfoundland PO Box St John s A1C S7 Marine and Hydrokinetic http http www greyislandenergy com Canada Gulfstream...

  1. MTBE Production Economics

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    MTBE Production Economics Tancred C. M. Lidderdale Contents 1. Summary 2. MTBE Production Costs 3. Relationship between price of MTBE and Reformulated Gasoline 4. Influence of Natural Gas Prices on the Gasoline Market 5. Regression Results 6. Data Sources 7. End Notes 1. Summary Last year the price of MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) increased dramatically on two occasions (Figure 1) (see Data Sources at end of article.): 1. Between April and June 2000, the price (U.S. Gulf Coast waterborne

  2. California (with State off) Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production California Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Coalbed Methane Production

  3. Mississippi (with State off) Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Mississippi Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production Coalbed Methane Production

  4. YEAR IN REVIEW

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

    Amped Up Newsletter Volume 1, No. 1 | February 2015 2014 ANNUAL REPORT 2014 YEAR IN REVIEW Volume 1, No. 1, January/February 2015 What's Happening @ EERE IN THIS ISSUE A Message from Dave.......................................... 2 EERE All Hands Meeting ..................................... 3 Staffing Update ..................................................... 4 2014 Success Stories .......................................... 6 Sustainable Transportation ............................ 6 Renewable

  5. Domestic Uranium Production Report

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    9. Summary production statistics of the U.S. uranium industry, 1993-2015 Year Exploration and development surface drilling (million feet) Exploration and development drilling expenditures 1 (million dollars) Mine production of uranium (million pounds U3O8) Uranium concentrate production (million pounds U3O8) Uranium concentrate shipments (million pounds U3O8) Employment (person-years) 1993 1.1 5.7 2.1 3.1 3.4 871 1994 0.7 1.1 2.5 3.4 6.3 980 1995 1.3 2.6 3.5 6.0 5.5 1,107 1996 3.0 7.2 4.7 6.3

  6. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production from Less...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Less than 200 Meters Deep (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Crude Oil Production from Less than 200 Meters Deep (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  7. Coal production, 1991

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-10-01

    Coal production in the United States in 1991 declined to a total of 996 million short tons, ending the 6-year upward trend in coal production that began in 1985. The 1991 figure is 33 million short tons below the record level of 1.029 billion short tons produced in 1990 (Table 1). Tables 2 through 33 in this report include data from mining operations that produced, prepared, and processed 10,000 or more short tons during the year. These mines yielded 993 million short tons, or 99.7 percent of the total coal production in 1991, and their summary statistics are discussed below. The majority of US coal (587 million short tons) was produced by surface mining (Table 2). Over half of all US surface mine production occurred in the Western Region, though the 60 surface mines in this area accounted for only 5 percent of the total US surface mines. The high share of production was due to the very large surface mines in Wyoming, Texas and Montana. Nearly three quarters of underground production was in the Appalachian Region, which accounted for 92 percent of underground mines. Continuous mining methods produced the most coal among those underground operations that responded. Of the 406 million short tons, 59 percent (239 million short tons) was produced by continuous mining methods, followed by longwall (29 percent, or 119 million short tons), and conventional methods (11 percent, or 46 million short tons).

  8. 2015 Domestic Uranium Production Report

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    9 2015 Domestic Uranium Production Report Release Date: May 5, 2016 Next Release Date: May 2017 Year Exploration Mining Milling Processing Reclamation Total 2003 W W W W 117 321 ...

  9. 2015 Domestic Uranium Production Report

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

    7. Employment in the U.S. uranium production industry by state, 2003-15" "person-years" "State(s)",2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015 ...

  10. Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 35,577 40,269 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production

  11. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) California--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 5,051 5,952 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production

  12. Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 16,506 11,222 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production

  13. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Percentage of Crude Oil Production...

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

    Production from Greater than 200 Meters Deep (Percent) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Percentage of Crude Oil Production from Greater than 200 Meters Deep (Percent) Decade Year-0...

  14. Hydrogen Production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2014-09-01

    This 2-page fact sheet provides a brief introduction to hydrogen production technologies. Intended for a non-technical audience, it explains how different resources and processes can be used to produce hydrogen. It includes an overview of research goals as well as “quick facts” about hydrogen energy resources and production technologies.

  15. Indiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 72 1980's 74 19 12 0 1990's 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  16. Louisiana--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,849,980 1,884,566 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals

  17. Texas (with State Offshore) Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas (with State Offshore) Coalbed Methane Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 11 8 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Coalbed Methane Estimated Production Texas Coalbed Methane Proved Reserves, Reserves

  18. Texas (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas (with State Offshore) Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 988 1,503 1,789 2010's 2,218 2,900 3,649 3,876 4,156 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production Texas Shale Gas Proved

  19. Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 53 30 21 16 13 11 9 9 8 2000's 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 2010's 4 3 4 3 3 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Nevada Natural Gas Gross

  20. Alabama--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 125,180 106,903 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Alabama Onshore

  1. Calif--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Calif--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 201,754 205,320 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production California Onsho

  2. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 233 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Florida-Florida

  3. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 86 4 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 30 25 21 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous

  4. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 506 516 501 488 382 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 8/31/2016 Next Release Date: 9/30/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL

  5. Texas--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Texas--Onshore Natural Gas Dry Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 6,878,956 7,135,326 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 08/31/2016 Next Release Date: 09/30/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Dry Production Texas Onshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and

  6. U.S. Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Production (Billion Cubic Feet) U.S. Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 1,293 2,116 3,110 2010's 5,336 7,994 10,371 11,415 13,447 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production U.S. Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  7. Texas--RRC District 1 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 1 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 11 2010's 41 156 362 630 822 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 1 Shale Gas Proved Reserves,

  8. Texas--RRC District 10 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 10 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 5 5 8 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 10 Shale Gas Proved Reserves, Reserves

  9. Texas--RRC District 5 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 5 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 437 769 954 2010's 1,053 1,266 1,256 1,128 1,022 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 5 Shale Gas

  10. Texas--RRC District 6 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Texas--RRC District 6 Shale Production (Billion Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 3 28 2010's 219 382 486 409 270 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Shale Natural Gas Estimated Production TX, RRC District 6 Shale Gas Proved Reserves,