Publications

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Social Infrastructure Service Burden (abbr. Social Burden) is defined as the burden to a population for attaining services needed from infrastructure. Infrastructure services represent opportunities to acquire things that people need, such as food, water, healthcare, financial services, etc. Accessing services requires effort, disruption to schedules, expenditure of money, etc. Social Burden represents the relative hardship people experience in the process of acquiring needed services. Social Burden is comprised of several components. One component is the effort associated with travel to a facility that provides a needed service. Another component of burden is the financial impact of acquiring resources once at the providing location. We are applying Social Burden as a resilience metric by quantifying it following a major disruption to infrastructure. Specifically, we are most interested in quantifying this metric for events in which energy systems are a major component of the disruption. We do not believe this is the only such use of the Social Burden metric, and therefore we will also be exploring its use to describe blue-sky conditions of a society in the future. Furthermore, while the construct can be applied to a dynamically changing situation, we are applying it statically, directly following a disruption. This notably ignores recovery dynamics that are a key capability of resilient systems. This too will be explored in future research.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

In 2010, nuclear weapon effects experts at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) were asked to provide a quick reference document containing estimated prompt nuclear effects. This report is an update to the 2010 document that includes updated model assumptions. This report addresses only the prompt effects associated with a nuclear detonation (e.g., blast, thermal fluence, and prompt ionizing radiation). The potential medium- and longer-term health effects associated with nuclear fallout are not considered in this report because, in part, of the impracticality of making generic estimates given the high dependency of fallout predictions on the local meteorological conditions at the time of the event. The results included in this report also do not consider the urban environment (e.g., shielding by or collapse of structures) which may affect the extent of prompt effects. It is important to note that any operational recommendations made using the estimates in this report are limited by the generic assumptions considered in the analysis and should not replace analyses made for a specific scenario/device. Furthermore, nuclear effects experts (John Hogan, SNL, and Byron Ristvet, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)) have indicated that the accuracy of effects predictions below 0.5 kilotons (kT) or 500 tons nuclear yield have greater uncertainty because of the limited data available for the prompt effects in this regime. The Specialized Hazard Assessment Response Capability (SHARC) effects prediction tool was used for these analyses. Specifically, the NUKE model within SHARC 2021 Version 10.2 was used. NUKE models only the prompt effects following a nuclear detonation. The algorithms for predicting range-to-output data contained within the NUKE model are primarily based on nuclear test effects data. Probits have been derived from nuclear test data and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protective action guides. Probits relate the probability of a hazard (e.g., fatality or injury) caused by a given insult (e.g., overpressure, thermal fluence, dose level). Several probits have been built into SHARC to determine the fatality and injury associated with a given level of insult. Some of these probits differ with varying yield. Such probits were used to develop the tables and plots in this report.

Levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) approaching the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Energy Technologies Office 2030 goal of 0.05 $/kWh may be achievable using Brayton power cycles that use supercritical CO2 as the working fluid and flowing solid particles with temperatures >700° C as the heat transfer media. The handling and conveyance of bulk solid particles at these temperatures in an insulated environment is a critical technical challenge that must be solved for this approach to be used. A design study was conducted at the National Solar Thermal Test Facility (NSTTF) at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM, with the objective of identifying the technical readiness level, performance limits, capital and O&M costs, and expected thermal losses of particle handling and conveyance components in a particle-based CSP plant. Key findings indicated that chutes can be a low-cost option for particle handling but uncertainties in tower costs make it difficult to know whether they can be cost effective in areas above the receiver if tower heights must then be increased. Skips and high temperature particle conveyance technology are available for moving particles up to 640° C. This limits the use of mechanical conveyance above the heat exchanger and suggests vertical integration of the hot storage bin and heat exchanger to facilitate direct gravity fed handling of particles.

Progress and status reviews allow teams to provide updates and targeted information designed to inform the customer of progress and to help the customer understand current risks and challenges. Both presenters and the customer should have well-calibrated expectations for the level of content and information. However, what needs to be covered in systems-level management reviews can too often be poorly defined. These unclear expectations can lead teams to overpreparing or attempting to guess what information the customer considers as most critical. This aspect of the review process is stressful, disruptive, and bad for morale – and time spent overpreparing reports is time spent not focusing on the technical work necessary to stay on schedule. To define and address these issues, this report was designed to observe various aspects of development program coordination and review activities for NNSA and Navy customers, and then to conduct unbiased, independent Human Factors observation and analysis from an outside perspective. The report concludes with suggestions and recommendations for improving the efficiency of information flow related to reviews, with the goals of increasing productivity and benefitting both Sandia and the customer.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.