Development of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Metrics and Risk Measures

Engel, David W.; Dalton, Angela C.; Anderson, Keith; Sivaramakrishnan, Chandrika; Lansing, Carina

doi:10.2172/1067968

Cited by 32 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Technological readiness of the fast pyrolysis upgrading processes (Engel, Dalton, Anderson, Sivaramakrishnan, & Lansing, ; Sanchez, ). The stars symbolize the number of technologies reviewed herein at a given technology readiness level (TRL) level…”

Section: Technology Readinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of thermochemical upgrading of pyrolysis bio‐oil: Techno‐economic analysis, life cycle assessment, and technology readiness

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technologies for upgrading fast pyrolysis bio‐oil to drop‐in fuels and coproducts are under development and show promise for decarbonizing energy supply for transportation and chemicals markets. The successful commercialization of these fuels and the technologies deployed to produce them depend on production costs, scalability, and yield. To meet environmental regulations, pyrolysis‐based biofuels need to adhere to life cycle greenhouse gas intensity standards relative to their petroleum‐based counterparts. We review literature on fast pyrolysis bio‐oil upgrading and explore key metrics that influence their commercial viability through life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno‐economic analysis (TEA) methods together with technology readiness level (TRL) evaluation. We investigate the trade‐offs among economic, environmental, and technological metrics derived from these methods for individual technologies as a means of understanding their nearness to commercialization. Although the technologies reviewed have not attained commercial investment, some have been pilot tested. Predicting the projected performance at scale‐up through models can, with industrial experience, guide decision‐making to competitively meet energy policy goals. LCA and TEA methods that ensure consistent and reproducible models at a given TRL are needed to compare alternative technologies. This study highlights the importance of integrated analysis of multiple economic, environmental, and technological metrics for understanding performance prospects and barriers among early stage technologies.

show abstract

Section: Technology Readinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of thermochemical upgrading of pyrolysis bio‐oil: Techno‐economic analysis, life cycle assessment, and technology readiness

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Taking a different approach from the organizations/research institutes, some industries tailored the description and number of levels of TRL to suit their internal enterprise-centered technology development strategies. An aerospace company adopted a 9-level TRL with different descriptions while the automotive industry and subsea industry create 10-level (Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, 2011) and 8-level (Engel, 2012) TRL scale, respectively. Hence, we propose that the steel-making plant needs its own TRL scale and definition.…”

Section: Technology Readiness Level (Trl) Definition and Its Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technology Readiness Level as an Exit Criteria of Early Life Cycle Phases for Steel‐making Plant

Salim

Lee

2016

INCOSE International Symp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Projects on steel‐making plant follow the stages of steel‐making plant system life cycle. In each life cycle stage, there are exit criteria to be fulfilled before a project can continue to the next stage. Among the exit criteria, we focus on one of the technical exit criteria, that is, the technology maturity. Technology maturity is measured using technical readiness level (TRL) and TRL concept has been largely adopted by numerous organizations and industry. However, the assignment of a certain TRL as one of the exit criteria of life cycle stages are not well adapted. In other words, TRL is not considered as a critical exit criteria of a system life cycle stages. In this paper, we would like to propose that the TRL should be one of the exit criteria of each life cycle stage. In this research, we propose a steel‐making plant system life cycle, define the technical readiness level for a steel‐making plant, and assign a target TRL for each life cycle stage as an exit criteria of that stage. The benefits of target TRL assignment to the life cycle stages are as follows: (1) the technical risk of developing/inserting a technology can be controlled on each life cycle stage, (2) the cost incurred if the technology to be developed/inserted is failed can be analyzed in each life cycle stage, and (3) as a standardization effort of technology readiness at each industrial plant life cycle stage. By directly assigning target TRL for each life cycle stages, we look forward to a more coordinated (in terms of exit criteria) and highly effective (in terms of technical risks identification and eventually project failure prevention) technology development and assessment processes.

show abstract

“…To estimate the maturity of a technology during development, we utilize the technical readiness level assessment. Our TRL‐based assessment identifies specific scientific and engineering targets required by each readiness level and applies probabilistic estimation techniques to calculate the likelihood of graded as well as potential nonlinear advancement in technology maturity . An expert elicitation system has been developed to assess CC technology readiness levels and use technical maturity information to estimate the level of uncertainty for risk simulations.…”

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To transform this qualitative measure into a quantitative assessment, we use the count of Y/N responses for each readiness level and the binomial distribution to construct an uncertainty model as shown in Eqn .

P (T R L_{i}) = (\begin{matrix} n \\ k \end{matrix}) p^{k} {((), 1 - p)}^{n - k}

where n is the number of questions for each specific TRL ( i ), k is the number of ‘Yes’ answers for each TRL, and p is the probability parameter . This likelihood (α i = P(TRL i )) estimates the probability of completion at each level.…”

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a risk-based comparison methodology of carbon capture technologies

Engel

Dalton

Dale

et al. 2014

Greenhouse Gas Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the varying degrees of maturity among existing carbon capture (CC) technology alternatives, an understanding of the inherent technical and fi nancial risk and uncertainty associated with these competing technologies is requisite to the success of carbon capture as a viable solution to the greenhouse gas emission challenge. The availability of tools and capabilities to conduct rigorous, risk-based technology comparisons is thus highly desirable for directing valuable resources toward the technology option(s) with a high return on investment, superior carbon capture performance, and minimum risk. To address this research need, we introduce a novel risk-based technology comparison method supported by an integrated multi-domain risk model set to estimate risks related to technological maturity, technical performance, and profi tability. Through a comparison between solid sorbent and liquid solvent systems, we illustrate the feasibility of estimating risk and quantifying uncertainty in a single domain (modular analytical capability) as well as across multiple risk dimensions (coupled analytical capability) for comparison. This method brings technological maturity and performance to bear on profi tability projections, and carries risk and uncertainty modeling across domains via inter-model sharing of parameters, distributions, and input/output. The integration of the models facilitates multidimensional technology comparisons within a common probabilistic risk analysis framework. This approach and model set can equip potential technology adopters with the necessary computational capabilities to make risk-informed decisions about CC technology investment. The method and modeling effort can also be extended to other industries where robust tools and analytical capabilities are currently lacking for evaluating nascent technologies.

show abstract

Development of Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Metrics and Risk Measures

Abstract: This document was printed on recycled paper.

Cited by 32 publications

References 7 publications

A review of thermochemical upgrading of pyrolysis bio‐oil: Techno‐economic analysis, life cycle assessment, and technology readiness

A review of thermochemical upgrading of pyrolysis bio‐oil: Techno‐economic analysis, life cycle assessment, and technology readiness

Technology Readiness Level as an Exit Criteria of Early Life Cycle Phases for Steel‐making Plant

Development of a risk-based comparison methodology of carbon capture technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About