Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "United States. Department of Energy" in: publisher
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Community Based Vulnerability Analysis Methodology [presentation]
This community vulnerability analysis briefing is designed to identify a process that a community can follow to identify various risk levels of community assets (such as institutions, industries and facilities). Once the risk level is determined, security attention to the assets can be prioritized. Click on the link to download this PowerPoint file.
United States. Department of Energy
Nicholson, Larry Gene, 1957-
2000-05-24
-
Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010, Volume II-Main Report
The objective of this document is to provide the Department of Energy (DOE) and the nuclear industry with the basis for a plan to ensure the availability of near-term nuclear energy options that can be in operation in the U.S. by 2010. This document identifies the technological,
regulatory, and institutional gaps and issues that need to be addressed for new nuclear plants to be deployed in the U.S. in this timeframe. It also identifies specific designs that could be deployed by 2010, along with the actions and resource requirements that are needed to ensure their availability. This near-term roadmap will also serve as input for a longer term and broader scope Generation IV Nuclear Technology Roadmap being prepared by DOE, as discussed below. In order to meet this objective, at least one competitive nuclear energy generation option, NRC-certified
and/or ready to construct, must be available for order by late 2003. Further, this Roadmap presents a plan to make available by 2010 a range of competitive, NRC-certified
and/or ready to construct nuclear energy generation options of a range of sizes to meet variations in market need, in order to have multiple new plants on line by the end of the decade.
United States. Department of Energy
2001-10-31
-
Generation IV Water-Cooled Reactor Concepts
"This Technical Working Group was charged with the identification and
evaluation of advanced water-cooled reactor concepts. The initial activity was the assessment and 'screening for potential' of candidate systems. Advanced water-cooled reactor concepts were identified via a formal DOE 'Request for Information' (RFI) issued in April 2001. This process resulted in submittal of 30 advanced water reactor concepts by researchers and industry experts in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Korea, and the U.S. In addition, the technical working group itself developed information on eight concepts, yielding a total of 38 concepts for evaluation. The technical working group consolidated all but one of the 38 reactor and fuel cycle concepts into nine distinct concept sets, based on their key common features. The technical working group then conducted a preliminary evaluation of these nine sets in order to determine their potential to achieve the Generation IV goals."
United States. Department of Energy
2001-11-13
-
Near Term Deployment of Nuclear Plants in the United States
An overview of this presentation is as follows: Strategic Context for Near Term Deployment of New Nuclear Energy Plants; Mission and Process; Generic Gaps and Issues; Conclusions; Recommendations, which include Phased Approach: Market-Driven Dual Track, Economic Competitiveness, Nuclear Industry Infrastructure, and National Nuclear Energy Strategy; and lastly, A Call to Action. Building new plants in the U.S. is the single most important step toward re-vitalizing Nuclear Energy R&D.
United States. Department of Energy
Long, Lou
2001-11-13
-
Generation IV Gas-cooled Reactor System Concepts
The purpose of this presentation is to identify and evaluate advanced gas cooled reactor system concepts for advancing the Generation IV goals. A DOE RFI and team solicitations resulted in 21 reactor system
concepts submitted from France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, and the U.S. The 21 concepts were consolidated into four concept sets. The four concept sets have been qualitatively screened to assess their potential to achieve the generation IV goals. The screening used criteria developed by the Evaluation Methodology Group in support of each goal, and measured
against existing advanced light water reactor designs. The advanced gas-cooled thermal reactor system concepts
show promise for: modest improvements in sustainability, significant improvement toward safety goals, and comparable economics with the potential for major improvement in applications other than electricity. Fast reactor concepts show: significant improvement toward sustainability goals, and that much development is needed to define promising concepts. All concept sets allow high temperature process heat
applications, in addition to electrical generation. The VHTR
concepts allow more applications and higher efficiencies. The next step is to quantitatively assess the concept sets and define R&D scope.
United States. Department of Energy
2001-11-13
-
Summary of Generation IV Non-Classical Nuclear Systems
Out of a total of 32 concepts gathered, among them 28 meet the Generation IV requirement of fission based self sustained criticality. Based on the primary design features , six "Concept Sets" are defined as: Liquid Core Reactors, Gas Core Reactors, Non-Conventional Coolant Reactors, Non-Convection Cooled Reactors, Direct Energy Conversion Reactors, and Modular Deployable Reactors. Non-Classical reactor concepts feature higher potential to meet or exceed
Gen IV performance goals at somewhat lower technology readiness level. Despite many technology gaps and data uncertainties, there is no
lack of innovation and revolutionary ideas in Non-Classical reactor concepts. Several concepts such as gas/vapor core reactors offer promising advances toward the Gen IV goals for sustainability, safety, and
economy, and have potential for making significant inroads toward achieving the optimum utilization of nuclear energy. Gas/vapor core reactors set the upper performance potential in sustainability and safety with no insurmountable technology challenge. Evaluations of modular deployable concepts are underway. Direct energy conversion and non-convective cooled nuclear
reactor systems are eliminated from further evaluation process.
United States. Department of Energy
2001-11-13
-
Report of the International Workshop on Technology Opportunities for Increasing the Proliferation Resistance of Global Civilian Nuclear Power Systems (TOPS)
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology (NE) has established a task force under the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) to identify near- and long-term technical opportunities to further increase the proliferation resistance of global nuclear power systems (TOPS) and to recommend specific research areas. The TOPS Task Force (Appendix A) was asked to call upon experts and hold, as needed, a series of workshops to analyze technologies and research issues. Accordingly, a TOPS International Workshop was held on March 29-30, 2000 in Washington, D.C. to help identify the: Key factors or attributes to evaluate technology R&D opportunities, most important opportunities for relevant near- and long-term research, and areas where international collaboration can be most productive. This report contains the results of that workshop.
United States. Department of Energy
2000-03-29
-
Request for Information on Near Term Deployment of Nuclear Energy Plants in the U.S.
This Request For Information (RFI) seeks input on nuclear plants that can be deployed and achieve commercial operational status in the United States by end of year (EOY) 2010. This RFI is intended to solicit responses from reactor manufacturers, architect-engineering companies (A/Es), nuclear plant owners and operating companies, energy policy experts, and others in government, industry or academia with information or views on the conditions necessary for nuclear plant orders, construction and operation by 2010. It also seeks information on any known technological, regulatory, and institutional gaps between the
current state of the art and the necessary conditions to deploy new commercial nuclear plants in the United States before EOY 2010 - e.g., the need to demonstrate the 10CFR Part 52 processes for obtaining Early Site Permits and Combined Licenses.
United States. Department of Energy
2001-03-26
-
Sandia Technology: Quarterly Research & Development Journal (Summer 2001, Entire Journal)
This is the entire Journal from Sandia National Laboratories for Summer 2001. This issue of Sandia Technology outlines some of those technologies, which encompass Sandia's work in robotics, computing, integrated microsystems, and biotechnology. Integrating disparate technologies into practical, effective systems that bolster
America's national security is Sandia's strength. Included are the following 5 different articles: "Countering Emerging Threats: Technologies for Asymmetrical Warfare, Protection of our Homeland and Future Warfighting", "Developing Technologies for Asymmetrical Warfare and Homeland Defense", "Fielding New Systems for Countering Terrorism", "Meeting the Logistics and
Demilitarization Challenges", and "Modeling and Simulation:
Who knows what evils lurk in the paths
of robots?".
United States. Department of Energy
2001
-
Generation IV Roadmap: Fuel Cycles
This document is from a presentation on November 13, 2001 to the American Nuclear Society. The purpose: Examine fuel resource inputs and waste outputs for the range of potential Generation IV fuel cycles, consistent with projected energy demand scenarios. Responsibilities include: Define energy demand projections, Project ore resource base, Survey of cycle types: Identify technology gaps & Recommend R&D, Determine range of energy supply achievable by Gen IV concepts within ore availability & waste arising constraint (Scenarios), Recommend fuel cycle parameters for all GenIV activities. The span of fuel cycles will include currently deployed and proposed fuel cycles based on uranium and/or thorium. Long-term sustainability will determine the choice of fuel cycles. Economics do not strongly constrain the choice of the fuel cycle--other factors may impact choices. Included are graphs and charts as supporting documentation.
United States. Department of Energy
2001-11-13
-
Development of an Evaluation Methodology to Support the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Technology Roadmap
The purpose of this document is to develop a process for the systematic evaluation of the comparative performance of proposed Generation IV concepts against established Generation IV Goals. A simple methodology has been developed for an initial screening of concepts for their potential to meet the goals. Methodology allows for a qualitative assessment of concepts for their potential to meet Generation IV Goals; assessment is based on a comparison to a Generation III
reference. A refined methodology for Final Screening is in development to allow for comparison and finer discrimination among concepts also for relative ranking of concepts to support selection.
United States. Department of Energy
2001-11-13
-
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative
At the end of 2001, 438 nuclear power reactors were in operation in 31 countries around the world, generating
electricity for nearly 1 billion people. They account for approximately 17 percent of worldwide installed base capacity for electricity generation and provide half or more of the electricity in a number of countries. As a whole, these reactors have an excellent operating record and are generating electricity in a reliable, environmentally safe, and affordable manner without emitting noxious gases into the atmosphere. Concerns over energy resource availability, climate change, air quality, and energy security suggest an important role for nuclear power in future energy
supplies. While the current Generation II and III nuclear power plant designs provide an economically,
technically, and publicly acceptable electricity supply in many markets, further advances in nuclear energy
system design can broaden the opportunities for the use of nuclear energy. To explore these opportunities, the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology has engaged
governments, industry, and the research community worldwide in a wide-ranging discussion on the
development of next-generation nuclear energy systems known as "Generation IV". Generation IV nuclear energy systems will: Provide sustainable energy generation that meets clean air objectives and promotes long-term availability of systems and effective fuel utilization
for worldwide energy production.
Minimize and manage their nuclear waste and notably reduce the long term stewardship burden in the future, thereby improving protection for the public health and the environment. Increase the assurance that they are a very unattractive and least desirable route for diversion or
theft of weapons-usable materials.
Excel in safety and reliability.
Have a very low likelihood and degree of reactor core damage. Eliminate the need for offsite emergency response.
Have a clear life-cycle cost advantage over other energy sources.
Have a level of financial risk comparable to other energy projects.
United States. Department of Energy
2002-03
-
Technology Goals for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems
Technology Goals have been developed by the Generation IV Roadmap NERAC Subcommittee (GRNS) and endorsed by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF). Close interaction was provided with the Roadmap Integration Team (Bennett) and the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science & Technology (Magwood). Generation IV is all about' reaching for challenging goals with innovative systems.
United States. Department of Energy
2001-11-13
-
Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS)
The Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) is one of the emergency response resources, or assets, administered by DOE. REAC/TS focuses on providing rapid medical attention to people involved in radiation accidents. REAC/TS is on call 24 hours a day to provide direct or consultative help with medical and health physics problems from local,
national, and international incidents.
REAC/TS also provides medical support to other DOE emergency response assets. REAC/TS' mission is to maintain an around the clock response center to provide direct support, including deployable equipment and personnel trained and experienced
in the treatment of radiation exposure, to assist Federal, state, Tribal and local organizations, and DOE Radiological Emergency Response Assets. REAC/TS provides medical advice, specialized training, and the unique capability of onsite
assistance for the treatment of all types of radiation exposure accidents.
United States. Department of Energy
2001
-
Attributes of Proliferation Resistance for Civilian Nuclear Power Systems
This annex represents input to the TOPS as a framework to eventually compare and rate different technologies. This "attributes" framework is still in development. Additional work will help refine many of the discussions and ratings of the specific barriers to proliferation, enhancing the utility of the
framework. In some cases, further work will allow a broader range of distinctions to be made in the degree of proliferation barriers posed by the features of a nuclear system. At the present stage of development, this framework cannot be used to quantitatively score or rank technologies. Also, in
lacking a system to estimate the weights of various attributes, this framework is limited to comparisons of the effectiveness of each attribute among civilian nuclear power systems and proliferation threat scenarios.
United States. Department of Energy
2000-10
-
Technological Opportunities to Increase the Proliferation Resistance of Global Civilian Nuclear Power Systems (TOPS)
The report covers four major topics: (a) the overall context in which nuclear power is being pursued at the present time, (b) the need and challenge to develop more systematic comparative nonproliferation assessments of different nuclear systems and their potential applications, (c) the technological
opportunities meriting exploration that have the potential to increase the proliferation resistance of future civilian nuclear power systems, and (d) the principal research and development (R&D) objectives that the U.S., working in a spirit of collaboration with other countries, should pursue to enhance the global nonproliferation regime. Two working premises guided this study: Nuclear power has the potential to continue making important contributions in helping meet future global energy needs under terms that are compatible with safety, economic, nonproliferation, and environmental objectives, including the desire to abate air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Unless the U.S. pursues a much more proactive R&D program in the civil nuclear field, its technical influence in advancing those aspects of the non-proliferation regime that relate to civil nuclear energy could seriously erode as could its ability to help shape and influence proliferation resistance choices in other countries. After an in-depth review based on these premises, we have concluded that there are promising technical approaches that might well increase the proliferation
resistance of civilian nuclear systems. Furthermore, a significant investment in R&D is warranted to evaluate these approaches and pursue those identified as most promising.
United States. Department of Energy
2001-01
-
Nuclear Data for Homeland Defense and National Security
This data sheet covers the U.S. Nuclear Data Program, including Initiatives, National Nuclear Data Center, Safeguards and Nuclear Materials Management, Nuclear Interrogation, Stockpile Stewardship, and New Generation of Reactors, including many graphics. Nuclear data represent an essential part of nuclear technology information of homeland defense and national security, with substantial need for its improvement and development.
United States. Department of Energy
2002
-
Report Card on the Department of Energy's Non-Proliferation Programs with Russia
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, we have witnessed the dissolution of an empire having over 40,000 nuclear weapons, over a thousand metric tons of nuclear materials, vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons materials, and thousands of missiles. This Cold War arsenal is spread across 11 time zones and lacks the Cold
War infrastructure that provided the control and financing necessary to assure that chains of command remain intact and nuclear weapons and materials remain securely beyond the reach of terrorists and weapons-proliferating states. This problem is compounded by the existence of thousands of weapons scientists who, not always
having the resources necessary to adequately care for their families, may be tempted to sell their expertise to countries of proliferation concern. In order to assess the Department of Energy's part of current U.S. efforts to deal with this critical situation, in February 2000 Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson asked former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler to co-chair a bipartisan task force to review and assess DOE's
nonproliferation programs in Russia and to make recommendations for their improvement. The Task Force reached the following conclusions and
recommendations: The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the
danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home; Current nonproliferation programs in the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and related agencies have achieved impressive results thus far, but their
limited mandate and funding fall short of what is required to address adequately the threat; The new President and leaders of the 107th Congress face the urgent national security challenge of devising an enhanced response proportionate to the threat; The President, in consultation with Congress and in cooperation with the Russian
Federation, should quickly formulate a strategic plan to secure and/or neutralize in the next eight to ten years all nuclear weapons-usable material located in Russia and to prevent the outflow from Russia of scientific expertise that could be used for nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction.
United States. Department of Energy
2001-01-10
-
Learning from the Arms Control Experience
Arms control and disarmament policy became an integral part of America's national defense strategy during the Cold War. The implementation of that policy brought with it into the security arena a number of environmental issues. In some instances, addressing environmental concerns was a major goal of our arms control agenda, as in the treaty banning environmental modification as a method of warfare (U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 1996). In other cases, environmental problems presented challenges to the achievement of other goals, as in the obstacles created by clean air standards to the rapid elimination of ballistic missiles required by new treaties. The environmental consequences of conflict were also a matter of debate within the arms control community: for example, the fear that a "nuclear winter" could follow a global war, the controversy over use of defoliants in counter-insurgency operations,
and the uncertainty about regional consequences of Saddam Hussein's burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields during the Gulf War. Environmental degradation was increasingly seen also as a cause of conflict or a hindrance to peace. Concerns that environmental threats might undermine negotiations led to considerable parallelism in the Multilateral Middle East Peace Process as the Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) working group found itself following closely developments in the working groups dealing with water, refugees, and economics. As we consider suggestions that our notions of international security be broadened or enhanced to include a greater centrality for environmental issues, insights can be gained from recent arms control experience. In part, that experience places before us case studies of the national security establishment coming to grips with environmental questions. Perhaps of even greater value is the recognition that the arms control policy process, with themes, institutions, and individuals mirroring and even overlapping those involved in the environmental policy process, has debated many of the same issues now central to the question of what is "environmental security." Thus, one can gain some insight into the role environmental issues play in national security by looking at the arms control experience. In the process, thinking about what is meant by "environmental security" may be clarified.
United States. Department of Energy
Lehman, II, Ronald F.
1998-07-14
-
Environment and Security
The following is an overview of the major scholarly arguments and U.S. government activities to date concerning environment and security ideas. This broad ranging treatment is intended to provide a baseline for discussions. Given this wide scope, no one academic argument or policy manifestation is treated with the attention each individually deserves. We divide the field into three main categories: (1) debates regarding environment and new definitions of security, (2) debates regarding environment and traditional definitions of security, and (3) debates regarding how security institutions affect the environment. Within each of these categories, we detail arguments from what we loosely refer to as the proponents and critics of the various conceptions. It should be emphasized that considerable diversity in opinion persists both within and among these three categories regarding the degree of "threats" and the prioritization of issues.
United States. Department of Energy
Dabelko, Geoffrey D.; Simmons, P. J., 1967-
1998-07-14
-
Environmental Dimensions of National Security
For many readers, the concept of "environmental security," or the integration of environmental issues and national security considerations at a national policy level, may well be novel. It may even appear somewhat oxymoronic. It is, in fact, neither. Rather, it reflects recent history and trends, and the significant evolution of our knowledge of both fields. This is not to say that the concept is well understood--as the papers in this volume illustrate, that is a work in progress--or, for that matter, that the concept is even universally accepted as valid. There are those in both the environmentalist and security communities who view such integration with deep skepticism, even alarm. More broadly, however, it can be argued that the debate about the validity and meaning of environmental security is a part of, and a reflection of, a number of basic trends that, taken together, mark this post-Cold War period as one of fundamental change. It may therefore be useful to explore this broader landscape within which the integration of previously disparate policy areas may be (is?) occurring, and at least alert the reader to some of the developments in the environmental and national security policy arenas. Hopefully, this discussion will provide a context within which the following papers and reference material can be more easily understood.
United States. Department of Energy
Allenby, Braden R.
1998-07-14
-
Agro-Terrorism: What Is the Threat?
Agricultural bioterrorism is defined as the malicious use of plant or animal pathogens to cause devastating disease in the agricultural sector. Currently, this topic has received increased attention and discussion within academic, media, and government circles. The US agriculture sector, with subsidiary dependent industries, accounts for around one-sixth of the nation's gross domestic product and one-eighth of its employment. Some analysts contend that the agricultural sector is highly vulnerable to an attack. The potential consequences of a malicious attack on agriculture can be seen in naturally occurring disease outbreaks elsewhere in the world, which have cost billions of dollars and temporarily wrecked entire industries. The costs of a major disease outbreak may affect not only the farmer or producer, but also a series of associated groups and individuals, from agricultural workers and processing facilities to shippers, retailers, and finally consumers.
United States. Department of Energy
2001
-
International Law
Three hundred and fifty years ago, the Peace of Westphalia established a new international legal order based on sovereign, independent, territorially defined states, each striving to maintain political independence and territorial integrity. The system was hierarchic, since states controlled everything under them, and based on equality among sovereign states. It reflected a laissez faire philosophy, in which all states were equally free to pursue their own interests, whatever their underlying economic or political differences. As the system of sovereign states found in Europe spread across the globe, so did the international legal system based on it. The Permanent Court of International Justice articulated the classical view in the famous 1927 S. S. Lotus Case between France and Turkey: "international law governs relations between independent States. The rules of law binding upon States therefore emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions or by usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law and established in order to regulate the relations between these coexisting independent communities or with a view to the achievement of common aims." The classical view implicitly adopts the Realist School that states are monolithic bodies and does not treat entities within states, transnational entities, or individuals as important. It relies on binding legal instruments to provide solutions to clearly defined problems and assumes that states comply with their international legal obligations. There is a sharp line between international and domestic law and between public and private international law. But the international system has been rapidly changing and with it the international legal system. This has important implications for the role of international law in addressing issues of environmental security.
United States. Department of Energy
Weiss, Edith Brown, 1942-
1996-12
-
United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 Through September 1992
"This document list chronologically and alphabetically by name all nuclear tests and simultaneous detonations conducted by the United States from July 1945 through September 1992. Revision 15, dated December 2000."
United States. Department of Energy
2000-12-01
-
Winning the War on Terrorism
"America is taking the fight to the terrorists. We have ended the Taliban regime and al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan. The victory over the Taliban has been followed by successes in other areas of the world. Yet the war has only begun. As President Bush has repeated time and again, America is in the opening stages of a long struggle against terrorist groups and the nations that support them. The United States and cooperating nations have brought a wide range of capabilities to bear on terrorism. The diverse activities undertaken illustrate the degree to which we are engaged in a new type of war. The United States and cooperating nations have: 1. built and maintained a global coalition of more than 70 countries to fight terrorism;2. conducted successful military operations resulting in regime change in Afghanistan; 3. provided freedom and humanitarian relief to oppressed people in Afghanistan; 4. frozen terrorists' assets and restricted the flow of money that enables terror; and 5. exploited unprecedented intelligence capabilities to locate, track, and apprehend terrorists on the run."
United States. Department of Energy
2003
-
Winning the War on Terrorism Abroad
"Terrorism is a direct threat to our homeland, but in most cases it is a threat that originates overseas. U.S. efforts must assure there are no safe havens for terrorists anywhere in the world. The 2003 Budget provides the resources for that effort. Fortunately, we do not undertake this struggle alone. As President Bush has said, '[t]he vast majority of countries are now on the same side of a moral and ideological divide. We're making common cause with every nation that chooses lawful change over chaotic violence--every nation that values peace and safety and innocent life.' The United States is working with traditional allies and new partners to achieve the goal of eliminating global terrorism. Many of these willing partners are only beginning to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities to assure our common success. This budget requests assistance to support friends who join this global cause. Terrorism has many faces and takes many forms around the world. The war on terrorism will not end with the capture of Osama Bin Laden or the destruction of the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has many widely distributed cells that will not cease their efforts against the United States simply because we capture or kill Bin Laden. Nor will the destruction of the al Qaeda network eliminate the threat of international terrorism against the United States. Other terrorist groups who wish to harm or intimidate the United States will remain. Therefore, even after the combat operations in Afghanistan wind down, we will still have a great deal more work to do. And this work will differ in important ways from the wars the United States has waged in the past."
United States. Department of Energy
2002
-
WMF-610 Fire Hazard Analysis/Fire Safety Assessment: Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project
"The purpose of this combined Fire Hazards Analysis (FHA) and Fire Safety Assessment (FSA) is to ascertain whether the objectives identified by Department of Energy (DOE) Order 420.1B, Facility Safety, are met for WMF-610, within the operations area at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The objectives identified by DOE Order 420.1B to be met by this FHA/FSA are: (1.) Minimize the potential for the occurrence of a fire or related event; (2.) Ensure that fire does not cause an onsite or offsite release of radiological and other hazardous material that will threaten the health and safety of employees, the public, or the environment; (3.) Ensure that vital U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) programs will not suffer unacceptable delays as a result of fire and related hazards; (4.) Ensure that property damage from fire and related events does not exceed defined limits established by DOE; [and] (5.) Ensure that critical process control and safety class systems are not damaged as a result of fire or related events."
United States. Department of Energy
Sygitowicz, L.S.
2007-04-25
-
Natural Gas Infrastructure Implications of Increased Demand from the Electric Power Sector
"The natural gas sector in the United States has been fundamentally transformed by technological advancements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that have enabled the economic extraction of natural gas from shale formations. This breakthrough has, in turn, unlocked new, geographically diverse natural gas resources that are unprecedented in size. [...] However, increased use of natural gas in the electric power sector also presents some potential challenges. Unlike other fossil fuels, natural gas cannot typically be stored on-site and must be delivered as it is consumed. [...] The purpose of this study is to understand the potential infrastructure needs of the U.S. interstate natural gas pipeline transmission system under several future natural gas demand scenarios."
United States. Department of Energy
2015-02
-
Climate Change and Energy Infrastructure Exposure to Storm Surge and Sea-Level Rise
"This study provides an initial assessment of the effects of the interaction of sea-level rise (SLR) and storm surge on the exposure of energy infrastructure to coastal flooding. We find that climate change is likely to substantially increase the vulnerability of many energy facilities in the coming decades. As recent hurricane events have demonstrated, this study found that an extensive amount of U.S. energy infrastructure is currently exposed to damage from hurricane storm surge. Furthermore, between 1992 and 2060, the number of energy facilities exposed to storm surge from a weak (Category 1) hurricane could increase by 15 to 67 percent under a high sea-level rise scenario from the recent National Climate Assessment. The total number of facilities that are exposed to storm surge from Category 3 storms is much greater; however, the percent increase in facility exposure due to SLR under a Category 3 storm is lower than for a Category 1 storm. Any significant increase in the frequency of intense hurricanes in a warmer climate would further exacerbate exposure to storm surge and wind damage."
United States. Department of Energy
Bradbury, James; Allen, Melissa; Dell, Rebecca
2015-07
-
Quadrennial Energy Review, Transforming the Nation's Electricity System: The Second Installment of the QER
"The second installment of the Quadrennial Energy Review (QER 1.2) focuses on the electricity system and its role as the enabler for accomplishing three key national goals: improving the economy, protecting the environment, and increasing national security. As a critical and essential national asset, it is a strategic imperative to protect and enhance the value of the electricity system through modernization and transformation. Reliable and affordable electricity provides essential energy services for consumers, business, and national defense. [...] QER 1.2 analyzes trends and issues confronting the Nation's electricity sector out to 2040, examining the entire electricity supply chain from generation to end use, and within the context of three overarching national goals to: (1) enhance economic competitiveness; (2) promote environmental responsibility; and (3) provide for the nation's security. The report builds on analysis and recommendations in the first installment of the QER (QER 1.1) on improving energy transmission, distribution, and storage infrastructures, and provides recommendations that must be implemented to optimize and modernize the electricity sector."
United States. Department of Energy
2017-01
