Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)

Publications and source records attributed to Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088).

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗

Electric Grid Visualization: Hourly Generation, Load, Unserved Load, and Locational Marginal Prices during a 2018 Heatwave

Visualization of hourly generation, load, unserved load, and locational marginal energy prices in the western United States during a July 22-28 heatwave event in 2018. In addition to hourly time series data of each of the parameters, choropleth maps showing the hourly value for each balancing authority are provided as well as a county-level choropleth map of temperature.

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗

Energy and AI: Evaluating Future Grid and Water Stress Due to Data Centers

Projections of the need for new data centers to support Artificial Intelligence (AI) are large but highly uncertain. Recent projections indicate up to a 15% annual growth rate in data center electricity demand within the next 5-10 years. Given that most electric utilities are required to have a reserve margin of roughly the same magnitude as the projected growth in demand, these new data center loads could soon threaten resource adequacy and reliability unless data centers build their own generation, interruptible loads are negotiated, commensurate new capacity and/or transmission is built, or some combination of these options. Similarly, depending on the cooling technology and geographic location of new data centers, they could threaten water adequacy in water scarce regions. This presentation highlights the grid and water implications of new data centers to support AI.

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗

Harmonized geospatial data to support infrastructure siting feasibility planning for energy system transitions

Climate change, energy system transitions, and socioeconomic change are compounding influences affecting the growth of electricity demand. While energy efficiency initiatives and distributed resources can address a significant amount of this demand, the United States will likely still need new utility-scale generation resources. The energy sector uses capacity expansion planning models to determine the aggregate need for new generation, but these models are typically at the state or regional scale and are not equipped to address the wide range of location- and technology-specific issues that are increasingly a factor in power plant siting. To help address these challenges, we have developed the Geospatial Raster Input Data for Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (GRIDCERF) data package, a high-resolution product to evaluate siting suitability for renewable and non-renewable power plants in the conterminous United States. GRIDCERF offers 264 suitability layers for use with 56 power plant technologies in a harmonized format that can be easily ingested by geospatially-enabled modeling software allowing for customization to robustly address science objectives when evaluating varying future conditions.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Valuation of Distributed Wind in an Isolated System

Remote communities are increasingly adopting renewable energy, such as wind, as they transition away from diesel energy generation. It is important to understand the benefits and costs of wind energy to isolated systems so that decision-makers can optimize their choices in these communities. There are few examples of valuation of wind energy as a distributed resource and numerous differences in valuation approaches, especially in the inclusion of environmental and economic impacts. We apply a distributed wind valuation framework to calculate the benefits and costs of wind in St. Mary’s, Alaska, to the local electric cooperative and to society, finding that the project does not have a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio unless societal benefits are included, in which case the benefit-to-cost ratio is nearly double. Government funding is important to reducing the initial capital expenditures of this wind project and will likely be the case for projects with similar characteristics. Additional fuel savings benefits are potentially possible for this project through technological additions such as energy storage and advanced controls.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

Resilience of Interdependent Water and Power Systems: A Literature Review and Conceptual Modeling Framework

As increasing pressures of population growth and climate change arise, water and power systems (WPS) are becoming increasingly interdependent. This interdependency has resulted in an increased potential for cascading failures, whereby the service interruption of one system can propagate to interdependent ones. This paper makes four contributions. First, we present an extensive literature review in the field of integrated water and power resilience, leveraging both institutional and technical literature research landscapes. We compare various modeling approaches used to model interdependent WPS and discuss the different metrics and definitions that are typically employed to quantify and define resilience. Relevant challenges and gaps related to modeling tools and metrics are also discussed, and appropriate recommendations are made. Second, the paper presents a visualization prototype for interdependent WPS to showcase water and power system interdependencies and reveal co-managed resilience strategies that can be used to improve resilience under different types of common threats. Third, we provide a conceptual decision support framework that simultaneously optimizes a portfolio of co-managed resilience strategies in the face of multiple, uncertain threats and addresses WPS interdependencies. Finally, we present future trends regarding digitalization, integrated planning, collaborative governance, and equity needs for building more resilient WPS.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

An Evaluation of the Economic and Resilience Benefits of a Microgrid in Northampton, Massachusetts

Recent developments and advances in distributed energy resource (DER) technologies make them valuable assets in microgrids. This paper presents an innovative evaluation framework for microgrid assets to capture economic benefits from various grid and behind-the-meter services in grid-connecting mode and resilience benefits in islanding mode. In particular, a linear programming formulation is used to model different services and DER operational constraints to determine the optimal DER dispatch to maximize economic benefits. For the resiliency analysis, a stochastic evaluation procedure is proposed to explicitly quantify the microgrid survivability against a random outage, considering uncertainties associated with photovoltaic (PV) generation, system load, and distributed generator failures. Optimal coordination strategies are developed to minimize unserved energy and improve system survivability, considering different levels of system connectedness. The proposed framework has been applied to evaluate a proposed microgrid in Northampton, Massachusetts that would link the Northampton Department of Public Works, Cooley Dickenson Hospital, and Smith Vocational Area High School. The findings of this analysis indicate that over a 20-year economic life, a 441 kW/441 kWh battery energy storage system, and 386 kW PV solar array can generate $2.5 million in present value benefits, yielding a 1.16 return on investment ratio. Results of this study also show that forming a microgrid generally improves system survivability, but the resilience performance of individual facilities varies depending on power-sharing strategies.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗