Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Project”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Preferred Practices Through a Project Template

In the realm of scientific software development, adherence to best practices is often advocated. However, implementing these can be challenging due to differing opinions. Certain aspects, such as software licenses and naming conventions, are typically left to the discretion of the development team. Our team has established a set of preferred practices, informed by, but not limited to, widely accepted best practices. These preferred practices are derived from our understanding of the specific contexts and user needs we cater to. To facilitate the dissemination of these practices among our team and foster standardization with collaborating domain scientists, we have created a project template for Python projects. This template serves as a platform for discussing the implementation of various decisions. This paper will succinctly delineate the components that constitute an effective project template and elucidate the advantages of consolidating preferred practices in such a manner.

Zhang, Chen↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hourly Electricity Demand Projections for Eight Combined Climate and Socioeconomic Scenarios

This dataset contains 40 years (1980-2019) of simulated historical hourly electricity demand (i.e., loads) and 80 years (2020-2099) of projected hourly loads for 54 Balancing Authorities (BAs) and 48 states plus the District of Columbia. Details about the scenarios and variables included in this dataset are in the readme.pdf file. The two primary models that created the dataset are a version of the Global Change Analysis Model with detailed sectoral resolution over the United States (GCAM-USA) and the Total ELectricity Loads (TELL) model. Links to the model source code and workflow for deriving the dataset are provided in an accompanying meta-repository: https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/burleyson-etal_2024_applied_energy. Projections are for four future climate scenarios that represent combinations of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5 combined with two levels of climate model sensitivities: rcp45cooler, rcp45hotter, rcp85cooler, and rcp85hotter. The four climate scenarios are crossed with Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) 3 and 5 to yield eight different future load projections: rcp45cooler_ssp3, rcp45cooler_ssp5, rcp45hotter_ssp3, rcp45hotter_ssp5, rcp85cooler_ssp3, rcp85cooler_ssp5, rcp85hotter_ssp3, and rcp85hotter_ssp5. The climate scenarios are from the IM3 Thermodynamic Global Warming (TGW) dataset which is linked below in the related metadata. The related metadata also contains links to a repository containing the raw GCAM-USA output files.

Climate Change↗
DOE OSTI2024

Global Corn Heat Stress: Mean and SD of Degree Days Above 29°C based on NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 Climate Projections

Description This global dataset provides the estimated mean and standard deviation (SD) of corn heat stress (degree days above 29°C) for a set of climate models in NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 at 0.25-degree resolution. The NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 dataset is comprised of global downscaled climate scenarios derived from the General Circulation Model (GCM) runs conducted under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). The current dataset includes: Long-Term Average Degree Days Above 29°C- Historical Long-Term Average Degree Days Above 29°C- SSP245 Long-Term Standard Deviation of Degree Days Above 29°C- Historical Long-Term Standard Deviation of Degree Days Above 29°C- SSP245 The mean and SD are calculated over 1985-2014 for the historical period and over 2035-2064 for future projections. A full description of methods, including growing season, daily temperature distribution, and statistical coefficients, can be found in Haqiqi (2024). The source climate data are obtained from https://ds.nccs.nasa.gov/thredds2/catalog/catalog.html and are described in Thrasher et al (2022). The codes used to create this dataset are available at https://github.com/ihaqiqi/dd29c_nex_cmip6. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling, MultiSector Dynamics under Cooperative Agreement DE-SC0022141. The data processing, computation, and storage were completed on Purdue Anvil supercomputer and cyberinfrastructure supported by the National Science Foundation HDR award # 2118329: "NSF Institute for Geospatial Understanding through an Integrative Discovery Environment (I-GUIDE)". References Haqiqi. I. (2024). Trade can buffer climate-induced risks and volatilities in crop supply. Environmental Research: Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.1088/2976-601X/ad7d12 Thrasher, B., Wang, W., Michaelis, A., Melton, F., Lee, T., & Nemani, R. (2022). NASA global daily downscaled projections, CMIP6. Scientific Data, 9(1), 262. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01393-4

Climate Change↗
DOE OSTI2024

County Level Annual Population Projections for SSP3 and SSP5

This dataset consist of annual (2020-2100) county-level population projections for the United States (U.S.) for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) 3 and 5. The original decadal state-level data is used as an input to the gridded population data model to downscale the state-level projections for each SSP to a 1 km grid. The 1 km data is then aggregated to the county-level using the 2020 TIGER/Line county shapefiles from the U.S. Census Bureau. The two data files are shared as .csv files with the following structure: Rows = Data for individual counties which are identified using their Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code. The FIPS code is stored in the first column. Columns = Each year from 2020-2100 is an individual column. For easier reference, the state name associated with each row is stored in the last column. Values in each cell are the downscaled estimated population for that county-year combination. Values are fractional due to the weighting scheme used in the downscaling. The paper and model source code cited in the "Related Works" section describes the initial source of the population projections.

FIPS↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) 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.

CERF↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected U.S. Western Interconnection Grid Stress Dataset

This dataset provides projected grid stress and reliability results (including all model inputs and outputs from GO WEST and TEP) for Integrated Multisector, Multiscale Modeling (IM3) Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the U.S. Western Interconnection through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States from a set of Thermodynamic Global Warming (TGW) simulations. These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 GO WEST is an open-source power grid modeling framework for the U.S. Western Interconnection, which allows users to tailor the model depending on their research study and science questions. It covers 28 balancing authorities (BAs) and 12 states in U.S. Western Interconnection. GO WEST allows users to select different number of nodes and come up with a simplified network by utilizing 10,000 nodal topology of the U.S. Western Interconnection (ACTIVSg10k). Users can select different number of nodes, mathematical formulations (linear programming vs. mixed-integer linear programming), transmission line limit scaling factors, and hurdle rate scaling factors. GO WEST offers a unit commitment and economic dispatch (UC/ED) module to simulate grid operations on an hourly scale. In this sense, users can calibrate and validate their model versions by comparing model outputs to historical datasets. TEP is an open-source transmission capacity expansion model, built on the GO WEST framework. It utilizes linear programming to optimize transmission capacity addition investment on existing lines within the GO WEST framework. The TEP model only increases the thermal capacity of existing transmission lines and does not add new lines to the system, which leaves the topology preserved. In order to use TEP model, users need to create scenarios with the GO WEST framework. Please refer to README file for a detailed description of the dataset including individual files and references.

Capacity Expansion Model↗
DOE OSTI2025

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)↗
DOE OSTI2026

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)↗
DOE OSTI2026

High-Resolution ESM Projections for Energy Applications Over the CONUS

Assessing energy resources under future scenarios requires high-resolution meteorological information that is physically consistent and suitable for regional-scale analysis. While Earth system model (ESM) projections provide valuable large-scale information, their coarse resolution and systematic biases limit direct applicability for energy system modeling and planning. In this study, we develop a high-resolution dynamical downscaling framework based on the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to translate global-scale ESM data into energy-relevant regional projections over the contiguous United States (CONUS). The framework identifies an optimized WRF configuration through numerical experiments and evaluates raw and bias-corrected ESM initial and boundary conditions, with soil moisture (SM) and soil temperature (ST) bias correction implemented as an integral part of the bias-corrected ESM forcing to improve land-atmosphere coupling prior to WRF dynamical downscaling. Using an optimized WRF configuration at 4-km resolution, we show that raw ESM forcing introduces systematic dry and cold soil biases that propagate into pronounced warm biases in near-surface air temperature and positive biases in solar irradiance, particularly during summer. Applying bias-corrected atmospheric forcing together with bias-corrected SM and ST substantially reduces these downstream biases and improves the surface energy balance and near-surface atmospheric fields. These results demonstrate that bias-aware treatment of initial conditions is critical for producing high-resolution downscaled projections suitable for energy system modeling and planning applications.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

E2C Cohorts: Implementation Funding Projects - Impact Summary [Slides]

From August 2024 to October 2025, 11 Clean Cities and Communities coalitions supported projects to advance transportation goals by gathering input from local stakeholders, and using the resulting insights to develop new plans and programs for local partners. This effort leveraged information and best practices shared during the 2024 E2C Cohort on Integrating Community Priorities into Electric Vehicle Plans and Projects. These coalitions supported partners across the country to develop plans for electric vehicle integration through one-on-one technical assistance and tailored local engagement. This deck summarizes the individual projects completed by coalitions, and the overall reach and impact of all of this program.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Assembling an Effective Team for Renewable Generation and Storage Projects

On-site renewable generation and storage systems have piqued the interest of facility owners to substantially reduce their energy costs and environmental footprint. Assembling an effective team before the project begins can streamline the implementation of these systems and ensure that the design, installation, and operation of the system are well aligned with the needs of the facility owner. To inform this process, this resource will provide three specific guidelines: Guideline 1: Identify common skillsets in renewable energy and storage projects; Guideline 2: Decide who will fill these skillsets, internally and externally; and Guideline 3: Recognize additional project considerations to ensure cost-effectiveness, increased resiliency, and contribution to both electrification and decarbonization goals.

ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATION↗
DOE OSTI2024

The PARADIGM Project: Case Study in Balancing Experiment Uncertainty with Design simplicity

Accurate nuclear data are required for simulations of many applications including nuclear criticality safety. Actinide nuclear data at intermediate energies (from 1 to 100s of keV) are imprecise and inaccurate, because of scarce differential data, and an insufficient theory approach to capture the structures expected in the data to yield evaluated nuclear data, and lack of integral data for proper validation. This is a known deficiency but has proved challenging to address. More specifically, only 5% of integral experiments in the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) benchmark suite address intermediate energies (Fig. 1). Associated calculated effective multiplication factor, k eff , values for these experiments are far outside the experimental uncertainties and are 25× further from experiment than for fast energies. These differences could either stem from systematic biases in nuclear data, experiments or both. The goal of the PARADIGM (PARallel Approach of Differential and InteGral Measurements) project is to significantly reduce (by more than tens of percent) the uncertainties of intermediate energy actinide nuclear data. The PARADIGM project designed and intends to execute LANSCE (Los Alamos Neutron Science CEnter) and NCERC (National Criticality Experiments Research Center) intermediate experiments in parallel. They will specifically address a high priority nuclear data need—reducing bias and uncertainty in intermediate plutonium nuclear data. The two experiment will achieve that by informing each other and nuclear theory. By doing all these steps in parallel, the timeline to deliver improved nuclear data to users will significantly be reduced. This work will focus on the integral experiment final design and the balance of design and modeling simplicity while minimizing experiment uncertainty.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Financing Options for Onsite Generation, Energy Storage, and Energy Efficiency Projects

Across sectors, commercial and industrial facilities are benefiting from the implementation of renewable energy generation, storage, and energy efficiency projects. Despite the potential for these projects to reduce onsite energy consumption, build resiliency, and lower operational costs in the long term, the initial expenses are often high. However, there are a growing number of financing mechanisms that can be leveraged. When deployed strategically, these mechanisms can give organizations the financial tools to install projects that accomplish their energy goals. In 6 steps, this resource introduces organizations to a general process to contextualize the many different financing options, ultimately facilitating an informed selection of financing mechanisms. Step 1 discusses the importance of establishing clear organizational preferences. Step 2 briefly introduces common financing options and Steps 3 and 4 provide guidance for selecting mechanisms based on locational availability and organizational preferences. Finally, Steps 5 and 6 show how mechanisms can be combined with incentives and provide preliminary guidance for selecting and engaging with external partners. While this document provides a general approach to selecting a financing mechanism for renewable energy generation, storage, and/or energy efficiency, it does not contain tax and/or legal advice. A tax advisor should be consulted before taking any action.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2025

COR-0011 Rev 6 MARVEL Project Code of Record

This Code of Record identifies the codes, standards, and procedures necessary to design, develop, construct, and startup the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation (MARVEL) Project at the Materials and Fuel Complex (MFC) Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) Facility and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The MARVEL Project is an INL test microreactor funded by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) via the Microreactor Program (MRP). The goal of the project is to establish an operational nuclear applications test bed that can generate combined heat and power to enable integration and R&D with end-user technologies, as well as allow microreactor technologists to test next-generation control systems. The microreactor is a thermal reactor utilizing Uranium Zirconium Hydride (UZrH) fuel with review and authorization by the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, safety review, and supplemental readiness assessments for startup and operation. To enable rapid deployment, the MARVEL reactor will reside in the Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) Facility and utilize the existing operating Category B reactor facility, approved facility safety basis, operating crews, and recent re-start experience.

21 - SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLAN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Special Observing Period (SOP) data for the Year of Polar Prediction site Model Intercomparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP)

The rapid changes occurring in the polar regions require an improved understanding of the processes that are driving these changes. At the same time, increased human activities such as marine navigation, resource exploitation, aviation, commercial fishing, and tourism require reliable and relevant weather information. One of the primary goals of the World Meteorological Organization's Year of Polar Prediction (YOPP) project is to improve the accuracy of numerical weather prediction (NWP) at high latitudes. During YOPP, two Canadian “supersites” were commissioned and equipped with new ground-based instruments for enhanced meteorological and system process observations. Additional pre-existing supersites in Canada, the United States, Norway, Finland, and Russia also provided data from ongoing long-term observing programs. These supersites collected a wealth of observations that are well suited to address YOPP objectives. In order to increase data useability and station interoperability, novel Merged Observatory Data Files (MODFs) were created for the seven supersites over two Special Observing Periods (February to March 2018 and July to September 2018). All observations collected at the supersites were compiled into this standardized NetCDF MODF format, simplifying the process of conducting pan-Arctic NWP verification and process evaluation studies. This paper describes the seven Arctic YOPP supersites, their instrumentation, data collection and processing methods, the novel MODF format, and examples of the observations contained therein. MODFs comprise the observational contribution to the model intercomparison effort, termed YOPP site Model Intercomparison Project (YOPPsiteMIP). All YOPPsiteMIP MODFs are publicly accessible via the YOPP Data Portal (Whitehorse: https://doi.org/10.21343/a33e-j150, Huang et al., 2023a; Iqaluit: https://doi.org/10.21343/yrnf-ck57, Huang et al., 2023b; Sodankylä: https://doi.org/10.21343/m16p-pq17, O'Connor, 2023; Utqiagvik: https://doi.org/10.21343/a2dx-nq55, Akish and Morris, 2023c; Tiksi: https://doi.org/10.21343/5bwn-w881, Akish and Morris, 2023b; Ny-Ålesund: https://doi.org/10.21343/y89m-6393, Holt, 2023; and Eureka: https://doi.org/10.21343/r85j-tc61, Akish and Morris, 2023a), which is hosted by MET Norway, with corresponding output from NWP models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Optimization of an Impedance-Matched Test Fixture with the Modal Projection Error

Across many industries and engineering disciplines, components and systems are designed and deployed into their operational environment of intended use. It is the desire of the design agency to be able to predict whether their component or system will function in its shock and vibration environments or if it will fail due to mechanical stresses. One method to determine if the component will survive the shock and vibration environments is to expose the component to the operational environment in a laboratory. One difficulty in executing a representative laboratory test is that the component may not have the same boundary condition in the laboratory as in the operational configuration. This paper examines the use of parameterized optimization to design the test fixture in order to better match the operational configuration. Several frequency and modal-based objective functions are examined for the optimization. The study shows that the Modal Projection Error objective function performs the best of the functions studied. The efficacy of the Modal Projection Error is demonstrated with respect to dynamic test fixture design on several analytical and experimental exemplars.

dynamic↗
DOE OSTI2024

Data-driven projection pursuit adaptation of polynomial chaos expansions for dependent high-dimensional parameters

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) and inference involving a large number of parameters are valuable tools for problems associated with heterogeneous and non-stationary behaviors. The difficulty with these problems is exacerbated when these parameters are statistically dependent requiring statistical characterization over joint measures. Probabilistic modeling methodologies stand as effective tools in the realms of UQ and inference. Among these, polynomial chaos expansions (PCE), when adapted to low-dimensional quantities of interest (QoI), provide effective yet accurate approximations for these QoI in terms of an adapted orthogonal basis. These adaptation techniques have been cast as projection pursuits in Gaussian Hilbert space in what has been referred to as a projection pursuit adaptation (PPA) by Xiaoshu Zeng and Roger Ghanem (2023). The PPA method efficiently identifies an optimal low-dimensional space for representing the QoI and simultaneously evaluates an optimal PCE within that space. The quality of this approximation clearly depends on the size of the training dataset, which is typically a function of the adapted reduced dimension. Here, the complexity of the problem is thus mediated by the complexity of the low-dimensional quantity of interest and not the complexity of the high-dimensional parameter space.

Data-driven↗
DOE OSTI2024

RandONets: Shallow networks with random projections for learning linear and nonlinear operators

Deep neural networks have been extensively used for the solution of both the forward and the inverse problem for dynamical systems. However, their implementation necessitates optimizing a high-dimensional space of parameters and hyperparameters. This fact, along with the requirement of substantial computational resources, pose a barrier to achieving high numerical accuracy, but also interpretability. Here, to address the above challenges, we present Random Projection-based Operator Networks (RandONets): shallow networks with random projections and tailor-made numerical analysis methods that learn accurately and fast linear and nonlinear operators. Building on previous works, we prove that RandOnets are universal approximators of linear and nonlinear operators. Due to their simplicity, RandONets provide a one-step transformation of the input space, facilitating interpretability. For the evaluation of their performance, we focus on operators of PDEs. We show, that RandONets outperform by several orders of magnitude, both in terms of numerical approximation accuracy and computational cost, the “vanilla” DeepONets. Hence, we believe that our method will trigger further developments in the field of scientific machine learning, for the development of new ‘’light”schemes that will provide high accuracy while reducing dramatically the computational cost. A MATLAB toolbox for RandONets, including demos, is available on GitHub at https://github.com/GianlucaFabiani/RandONets.

Interpretable machine learning↗