Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Resource”

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 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

Global Futures: The Future of Nonrenewable Resource Security

Nonrenewable resources are distributed unevenly throughout the world. Throughout history, the ability to access nonrenewable resources has been a source of geopolitical tension. Modern civilization is increasingly dependent on unevenly distributed resources that are traded globally. This cooperation has helped to increase resource security by increasing affordable access to resources around the world. The continued accessibility of nonrenewable resources is the key uncertainty to security over the next 15 to 25 years. Increased global demands for nonrenewable resources, fragility to resource shocks, and geopolitical upheavals may threaten nonrenewable resource security. A reduction in resource security could exacerbate defense and economic vulnerabilities to resource shocks, and increased fears of resource insecurity could drive conflict over resources leading to geopolitical upheavals. National security organizations can help build resource security by making investments that create resilience to resource shocks. They can also promote international cooperation that builds trust. Together, increased resilience to shocks and increased global trust should help reduce fears of resource insecurity and expand global cooperation on resource issues, thereby bolstering resource security.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Limited evidence for spatial resource partitioning across temperate grassland biodiversity experiments

Locally, plant species richness supports many ecosystem functions. Yet, the mechanisms driving these often-positive biodiversity–ecosystem functioning relationships are not well understood. Spatial resource partitioning across vertical resource gradients is one of the main hypothesized causes for enhanced ecosystem functioning in more biodiverse grasslands. Spatial resource partitioning occurs if species differ in where they acquire resources and can happen both above- and belowground. However, studies investigating spatial resource partitioning in grasslands provide inconsistent evidence. We present the results of a meta-analysis of 21 data sets from experimental species-richness gradients in grasslands. We test the hypothesis that increasing spatial resource partitioning along vertical resource gradients enhances ecosystem functioning in diverse grassland plant communities above- and belowground. To test this hypothesis, we asked three questions. (1) Does species richness enhance biomass production or community resource uptake across sites? (2) Is there evidence of spatial resource partitioning as indicated by resource tracer uptake and biomass allocation above- and belowground? (3) Is evidence of spatial resource partitioning correlated with increased biomass production or community resource uptake? Although plant species richness enhanced community nitrogen and potassium uptake and biomass production above- and belowground, we found that plant communities did not meet our criteria for spatial resource partitioning, though they did invest in significantly more aboveground biomass in higher canopy layers in mixture relative to monoculture. Furthermore, the extent of spatial resource partitioning across studies was not positively correlated with either biomass production or community resource uptake. Our results suggest that spatial resource partitioning across vertical resource gradients alone does not offer a general explanation for enhanced ecosystem functioning in more diverse temperate grasslands.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Managing Solar Photovoltaic Integration in the Western United States: Resource Adequacy Considerations

This study examines the impact of reserve margin-based reliability assessment, as commonly used in capacity expansion models, on planning resource-adequate power systems under high penetrations of solar photovoltaics (PV). As a generation resource, PV is operationally different from the conventional dispatchable resources for which most capacity expansion models were designed. The question this study attempts to answer is whether large amounts of PV on a system (in this case, the Western Interconnection of North America) would bias the results of conventional reserve margin-based capacity expansion modeling towards an over- or under-provisioning of resource adequacy. This analysis used NREL’s Resource Planning Model (RPM) for capacity expansion modeling and NREL’s Probabilistic Resource Adequacy Suite (PRAS) for resource adequacy assessment. RPM uses a reserve margin requirement to enforce resource adequacy. PRAS, a collection of tools for studying the resource adequacy of power systems and the adequacy contributions of individual resources on a probabilistic basis, was used to compute multiple resource adequacy metrics across a number of simulated scenarios and system representations with differing regional detail. In all cases, including high PV penetrations (up to 33% annual generation from PV, interconnection-wide), RPM was able to produce resource-adequate systems as measured by normalized expected unserved energy and loss-of-load expectation results from PRAS. The accuracy of reserve margin approaches depends heavily on the underlying assumptions informing the capacity credit assigned to variable and energy-limited resources, particularly when such resources are abundant in the modeled system. RPM’s standard methodology for estimating variable and flexible resources’ capacity contributions, which is based on the top 100 hours of net load, did not appear to systematically undervalue or overvalue variable generation relative to a more rigorous equivalent firm capacity assessment using PRAS, although both over- and under-valuations were observed in specific scenarios. In the worst cases, the top 100 hour method underestimated the equivalent firm capacity of PV by two percentage points, and overestimated the equivalent firm capacity of PV by five percentage points. Calculating capacity contributions based on the top 10 hours of net load systematically underestimated equivalent firm capacities at more modest PV penetrations, but was often a better approximation of equivalent firm capacity than the existing 100-hour approach in scenarios with higher PV penetrations.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2013

Lunar Polar In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) as a Stepping Stone for Human Exploration

A major emphasis of NASA is to extend and expand human exploration across the solar system. While specific destinations are still being discussed as to what comes first, it is imperative that NASA create new technologies and approaches that make space exploration affordable and sustainable. Critical to achieving affordable and sustainable exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) are the development of technologies and approaches for advanced robotics, power, propulsion, habitats, life support, and especially, space resource utilization systems. Space resources and how to use them, often called In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), can have a tremendous beneficial impact on robotic and human exploration of the Moon, Mars, Phobos, and Near Earth Objects (NEOs), while at the same time helping to solve terrestrial challenges and enabling commercial space activities. The search for lunar resources, demonstration of extraterrestrial mining, and the utilization of resource-derived products, especially from polar volatiles, can be a stepping stone for subsequent human exploration missions to other destinations of interest due to the proximity of the Moon, complimentary environments and resources, and the demonstration of critical technologies, processes, and operations. ISRU and the Moon: There are four main areas of development interest with respect to finding, obtaining, extracting, and using space resources: Prospecting for resources, Production of mission critical consumables like propellants and life support gases, Civil engineering and construction, and Energy production, storage, and transfer. The search for potential resources and the production of mission critical consumables are the primary focus of current NASA technology and system development activities since they provide the greatest initial reduction in mission mass, cost, and risk. Because of the proximity of the Moon, understanding lunar resources and developing, demonstrating, and implementing lunar ISRU provides a near and early opportunity to perform the following that are applicable to other human exploration mission destinations: Identify and characterize resources, how they are distributed, and the material, location and environment in which they are found; Demonstrate concepts, technologies, and hardware that can reduce the cost and risk of human exploration beyond Earth orbit; Use the Moon for operation experience and mission validation for much longer missions that are farther from Earth Develop and evolve ISRU to support sustained, economical human presence beyond Earth's orbit, including promoting space commercialization As Table 1 depicts, the Moon provides environments and resources applicable to Mars and NEOs. Two lunar ISRU resource and product pathways that have notable synergism with NEO, Phobos/Demos, and Mars ISRU are oxygen/metal extraction from regolith, and water/volatile extraction from lunar polar materials. To minimize the risk of developing and incorporating ISRU into human missions, a phased implementation plan is recommended that starts with prospecting and demonstrating critical technologies on robotic and human missions, then performing pilot scale operations (in non-mission critical roles) to enhance exploration mission capabilities, leading to full utilization of space resources in mission critical roles. Which lunar ISRU pathway is followed will depend on the results of early resource prospecting/proof-ofconcept mission(s), and long-term human exploration plans.

Sanders, Gerald B.↗
DOE OSTI2015

The Resource Identification Initiative: A cultural shift in publishing

A central tenet in support of research reproducibility is the ability to uniquely identify research resources, i.e., reagents, tools, and materials that are used to perform experiments. However, current reporting practices for research resources are insufficient to allow humans and algorithms to identify the exact resources that are reported or answer basic questions such as “What other studies used resource X?” To address this issue, the Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the methods sections of papers and thereby improve identifiability and reproducibility. The pilot engaged over 25 biomedical journal editors from most major publishers, as well as scientists and funding officials. Authors were asked to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their manuscripts prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (including software and databases). RRIDs represent accession numbers assigned by an authoritative database, e.g., the model organism databases, for each type of resource. To make it easier for authors to obtain RRIDs, resources were aggregated from the appropriate databases and their RRIDs made available in a central web portal (www.scicrunch.org/resources). RRIDs meet three key criteria: they are machine readable, free to generate and access, and are consistent across publishers and journals. The pilot was launched in February of 2014 and over 300 papers have appeared that report RRIDs. The number of journals participating has expanded from the original 25 to more than 40. Here, we present an overview of the pilot project and its outcomes to date. We show that authors are generally accurate in performing the task of identifying resources and supportive of the goals of the project. We also show that identifiability of the resources pre- and post-pilot showed a dramatic improvement for all three resource types, suggesting that the project has had a significant impact on reproducibility relating to research resources.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2015

The Resource Identification Initiative: A cultural shift in publishing

A central tenet in support of research reproducibility is the ability to uniquely identify research resources, i.e., reagents, tools, and materials that are used to perform experiments. However, current reporting practices for research resources are insufficient to allow humans and algorithms to identify the exact resources that are reported or answer basic questions such as “What other studies used resource X?” To address this issue, the Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the methods sections of papers and thereby improve identifiability and reproducibility. The pilot engaged over 25 biomedical journal editors from most major publishers, as well as scientists and funding officials. Authors were asked to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their manuscripts prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (including software and databases). RRIDs represent accession numbers assigned by an authoritative database, e.g., the model organism databases, for each type of resource. To make it easier for authors to obtain RRIDs, resources were aggregated from the appropriate databases and their RRIDs made available in a central web portal (www.scicrunch.org/resources). RRIDs meet three key criteria: they are machine readable, free to generate and access, and are consistent across publishers and journals. The pilot was launched in February of 2014 and over 300 papers have appeared that report RRIDs. The number of journals participating has expanded from the original 25 to more than 40. Here, we present an overview of the pilot project and its outcomes to date. We show that authors are generally accurate in performing the task of identifying resources and supportive of the goals of the project. We also show that identifiability of the resources pre- and post-pilot showed a dramatic improvement for all three resource types, suggesting that the project has had a significant impact on reproducibility relating to research resources.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1992

Space Resources

Space resources must be used to support life on the Moon and exploration of Mars. Just as the pioneers applied the tools they brought with them to resources they found along the way rather than trying to haul all their needs over a long supply line, so too must space travelers apply their high technology tools to local resources. The pioneers refilled their water barrels at each river they forded; moonbase inhabitants may use chemical reactors to combine hydrogen brought from Earth with oxygen found in lunar soil to make their water. The pioneers sought temporary shelter under trees or in the lee of a cliff and built sod houses as their first homes on the new land; settlers of the Moon may seek out lava tubes for their shelter or cover space station modules with lunar regolith for radiation protection. The pioneers moved further west from their first settlements, using wagons they had built from local wood and pack animals they had raised; space explorers may use propellant made at a lunar base to take them on to Mars. The concept for this report was developed at a NASA-sponsored summer study in 1984. The program was held on the Scripps campus of the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), under the auspices of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). It was jointly managed under the California Space Inst. and the NASA Johnson Space Center, under the direction of the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST) at NASA Headquarters. The study participants (listed in the addendum) included a group of 18 university teachers and researchers (faculty fellows) who were present for the entire 10-week period and a larger group of attendees from universities, Government, and industry who came for a series of four 1-week workshops. The organization of this report follows that of the summer study. Space Resources consists of a brief overview and four detailed technical volumes: (1) Scenarios; (2) Energy, Power, and Transport; (3) Materials; (4) Social Concerns. Although many of the included papers got their impetus from workshop discussions, most have been written since then, thus allowing the authors to base new applications on established information and tested technology. All these papers have been updated to include the authors' current work. This overview, drafted by faculty fellow Jim Burke, describes the findings of the summer study, as participants explored the use of space resources in the development of future space activities and defined the necessary research and development that must precede the practical utilization of these resources. Space resources considered included lunar soil, oxygen derived from lunar soil, material retrieved from near-Earth asteroids, abundant sunlight, low gravity, and high vacuum. The study participants analyzed the direct use of these resources, the potential demand for products from them, the techniques for retrieving and processing space resources, the necessary infrastructure, and the economic tradeoffs. This is certainly not the first report to urge the utilization of space resources in the development of space activities. In fact, Space Resources may be seen as the third of a trilogy of NASA Special Publications reporting such ideas arising from similar studies. It has been preceded by Space Settlements: A Design Study (NASA SP-413) and Space Resources and Space Settlements (NASA SP-428). And other, contemporaneous reports have responded to the same themes. The National Commission on Space, led by Thomas Paine, in Pioneering the Space Frontier, and the NASA task force led by astronaut Sally Ride, in Leadership and America's Future in Space, also emphasize expansion of the space Infrastructure; more detailed exploration of the Moon, Mars, and asteroids; an early start on the development of the technology necessary for using space resources; and systematic development of the skills necessary for long-term human presence in space. Our report does not represent any Government-authorized view or official NASA policy. NASA's official response to these challenging opportunities must be found in the reports of its Office of Exploration, which was established in 1987. That office's report, released in November 1989, of a 90-day study of possible plans for human exploration of the Moon and Mars is NASA's response to the new initiative proposed by President Bush on July 20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon: "First, for the coming decade, for the 1990s, Space Station Freedom, our critical next step in all our space endeavors. And next, for the new century, back to the Moon, back to the future, and this time, back to stay. And then a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet, a manned mission to Mars." This report, Space Resources, offers substantiation for NASA's bid to carry out that new initiative.

McKay, Mary Fae↗
DOE OSTI2019

Mid-Atlantic U.S. Offshore Carbon Storage Resource Assessment Project (Final Technical Report)

The greatest potential for carbon storage in the northeastern United States lies in the offshore geologic formations comprising the outer continental shelf (Monteverde et al., 2011). Offshore storage can be linked to large point-sources of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) while avoiding many of the logistical difficulties and potential risks encountered when siting onshore projects, especially in densely populated areas of the East Coast. Offshore CO 2 storage assessment and research in the United States is underway to address uncertainty in potential storage resources, particularly in the mid- and north-Atlantic offshore area. Given the current knowledge base and access to publicly available data, the objectives of the Mid-Atlantic U.S. Offshore Carbon Storage Resource Assessment Project (MAOCSRAP) were fourfold: (1) complete a systematic carbon storage resource assessment of the mid-Atlantic offshore coastal region from the Georges Bank Basin (GBB) through the Long Island Platform (LIP) to the southern Baltimore Canyon Trough (BCT); (2) define key input parameters to reduce uncertainty for offshore storage resource and efficiency estimates; (3) perform a preliminary assessment of risk factors, uncertainties, and data gaps; and (4) engage industry and regulatory stakeholders through development of a Road Map to assist future project planning and implementation. The MAOCSRAP project has compiled, inventoried, and assimilated various publicly available data sets to provide a strong technical basis on which future carbon storage studies and applications can be built. The knowledge infrastructure necessary to support the development of full-scale offshore carbon storage include: Defining the geologic characteristics of candidate storage sites (Chapter 2). Using existing seismic data to better define the continuity of the storage zones and seals (Chapter 3). Cataloguing the hydrogeologic properties of mid-Atlantic offshore storage sites (Chapter 4). Calculating prospective CO 2 storage resources using net effective pore volumes and fluid displacement properties specific to offshore lithologies (Chapter 5). Examining risk factors related to offshore storage (Chapter 6). Communicating with industry and other stakeholders about the future prospects for offshore storage (Chapter 7). Ensuring technology transfer to industry and other stakeholders (Chapter 8). Led by Battelle, this project was conducted by public and private entities with expertise in offshore geology and resources for the study region, including state geological surveys of Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania; United States Geological Survey-Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center and Haifa University; Rutgers University; Harvard University; and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) at Columbia University. The storage resource assessment was completed for a broad region offshore of the U.S. East Coast, from Massachusetts to Virginia. The results include high-level storage resource estimates for areas not previously characterized and improved storage resource estimates for geographically expansive portions of offshore geologic units. Results of the project provide a foundation for developing CO 2 storage along offshore areas of the mid-Atlantic United States. A combination of information was used to provide confidence in project results. Key findings of the major project tasks are summarized as follows. Subsurface Data Analysis: Legacy seismic, well-log, core, and biostratigraphic data were digitized, reprocessed, and analyzed using modern techniques, augmenting previous characterization efforts. The sequence stratigraphic framework for the Cretaceous and Jurassic strata was developed by correlating well-log depositional sequences to seismic reflectors identified in the BCT, LIP, and GBB. The integration of well-log stratigraphy with seismic stratigraphy and petrophysical analysis helped to identify and map potential storage zones within sequences of the Logan Canyon (LC), Missisauga, and Mohawk formations, as well as the regionally extensive caprock comprised of the Dawson Canyon shale. Approximately 4,000 kilometers (km) of seismic data was reprocessed to create a structural framework that was used to tie together all available well data, constrain sequence stratigraphic interpretations, and make regional assessments of offshore carbon storage resources. Prospective storage resource estimates were 150 to 1136 megatons (Mt) for the combined storage zones. This suggests mid-Atlantic U.S. offshore formations can store decades of CO 2 from industrial sources in the region. Preliminary local reservoir simulations suggest that injection rates of 1 Mt CO 2 /year may be sustained for 30 years in single injection wells in the BCT. Advanced geologic modeling and new data acquisition are needed to address data gaps and advance carbon capture and storage (CCS) in key offshore areas selected for further investigation. Offshore Risk Factors: Offshore geologic risk factors include soft sediment deformation, unit continuity, sedimentological and structural features, seismicity and hydrates. CO 2 storage risks include inadequate seals, migration/leakage, and chemical interactions leading to decreased storage. Sensitive habitats, environmental impacts, disturbance to seafloor, and other risks need to be identified in advance of project activities and integrated into detailed mitigation plans for all project phases. Stakeholder Engagement: Input and participation from government, industry, and environmental groups provided input into the Road Map and address next steps needed for project deployment. Early engagement and ongoing communication, as well as policy framework development, is key to large-scale deployment of CCS. Next Steps: This project represents an important first step by completing a high-level CO 2 storage resource assessment and building the knowledge infrastructure necessary to improve quantitative storage resource estimates. The data sets that have been curated under this project provide an opportunity to conduct research and development (R&D) needed to address data gaps and reduce risk and uncertainty. Offshore characterization and validation strategies that are systematically designed to provide data and infrastructure that can be upscaled to meet commercial requirements could be developed off of this foundation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2012

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Resource Management Plan Constraints, and Land Exchanges: Cross-Jurisdictional Management and Impacts on Unconventional Fuel Development in Utah's Uinta Basin

Utah is rich in oil shale and oil sands resources. Chief among the challenges facing prospective unconventional fuel developers is the ability to access these resources. Access is heavily dependent upon land ownership and applicable management requirements. Understanding constraints on resource access and the prospect of consolidating resource holdings across a fragmented management landscape is critical to understanding the role Utah’s unconventional fuel resources may play in our nation’s energy policy. This Topical Report explains the historic roots of the “crazy quilt” of western land ownership, how current controversies over management of federal public land with wilderness character could impact access to unconventional fuels resources, and how land exchanges could improve management efficiency. Upon admission to the Union, the State of Utah received the right to title to more than one-ninth of all land within the newly formed state. This land is held in trust to support public schools and institutions, and is managed to generate revenue for trust beneficiaries. State trust lands are scattered across the state in mostly discontinuous 640-acre parcels, many of which are surrounded by federal land and too small to develop on their own. Where state trust lands are developable but surrounded by federal land, federal land management objectives can complicate state trust land development. The difficulty generating revenue from state trust lands can frustrate state and local government officials as well as citizens advocating for economic development. Likewise, the prospect of industrial development of inholdings within prized conservation landscapes creates management challenges for federal agencies. One major tension involves whether certain federal public lands possess wilderness character, and if so, whether management of those lands should emphasize wilderness values over other uses. On December 22, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3310, Protecting Wilderness Characteristics on Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Supporters argue that the Order merely provides guidance regarding implementation of existing legal obligations without creating new rights or duties. Opponents describe Order 3310 as subverting congressional authority to designate Wilderness Areas and as closing millions of acres of public lands to energy development and commodity production. While opponents succeeded in temporarily defunding the Order’s implementation and forcing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to adopt a more collaborative approach, the fundamental questions remain: Which federal public lands possess wilderness characteristics and how should those lands be managed? The closely related question is: How might management of such resources impact unconventional fuel development within Utah? These questions remain pressing independent of the Order because the BLM, which manages the majority of federal land in Utah, is statutorily obligated to maintain an up-to-date inventory of federal public lands and the resources they contain, including lands with wilderness characteristics. The BLM is also legally obligated to develop and periodically update land use plans, relying on information obtained in its public lands inventory. The BLM cannot sidestep these hard choices, and failure to consider wilderness characteristics during the planning process will derail the planning effort. Based on an analysis of the most recent inventory data, lands with wilderness characteristics — whether already subject to mandatory protection under the Wilderness Act, subject to discretionary protections as part of BLM Resource Management Plan revisions, or potentially subject to new protections under Order 3310 — are unlikely to profoundly impact oil shale development within Utah’s Uinta Basin. Lands with wilderness characteristics are likely to v have a greater impact on oil sands resources, particularly those resources found in the southern part of the state. Management requirements independent of lands with wilderness characteristics far overshadow the challenges posed by wilderness issues. Wilderness character issues aside, a need to improve management integration remains. In researching past efforts to manage across the fragmented landscape we found that unilateral actions have been deeply divisive and engendered distrust among those impacted by the action. This distrust can linger for decades. Collaborative efforts, whether intended to protect lands, foster development, or do both, can represent an attractive alternative to unilateral action. Such collaborative efforts are more likely to succeed when they respond to strong incentives to act, evidence widespread involvement and support, and benefit from a committed champion. Projects are all but certain to fail where participants overreach or one of these elements is missing. For more than three decades, the state and federal government have cooperatively pursued land exchanges in order to “block up” isolated state trust lands and eliminate inholdings. These efforts can advance both conservation and development objectives, and are generally conducted in conjunction with efforts to protect extraordinary federal lands. Congress recognized the value of such exchanges and, as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, directed the Department of the Interior to pursue land exchanges as a means of facilitating environmentally responsible oil shale and oil sands recovery. But land exchanges are not without their challenges. Federal law requires equalizing the value of the lands and resources to be exchanged, and various means of equalizing value have been attempted. More flexible approaches have a higher likelihood of success, but are often criticized as resulting in an economic windfall for one party. Today challenges associated with appraisal and valuation stand as the most significant obstacles in the way of large-scale exchanges. Greater reliance on revenue sharing provisions that prevent an economic windfall to one party and avoid challenges inherent in valuing oil shale and oil sands resources may mark a promising path forward. The success or failure of these efforts could profoundly impact both the prospect of unconventional fuel development and wilderness character protection.

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Terminology Guideline for Classifying Offshore Wind Energy Resources

The purpose of this guideline is to establish a clear and consistent vocabulary for conveying offshore wind resource potential and to interpret this vocabulary in terms that are familiar to the oil and gas (O&G) industry. This involves clarifying and refining existing definitions of offshore wind energy resource classes. The terminology developed in this guideline represents one of several possible sets of vocabulary that may differ with respect to their purpose, data availability, and comprehensiveness. It was customized to correspond with established offshore wind practices and existing renewable energy industry terminology (e.g. DOE 2013, Brown et al. 2015) while conforming to established fossil resource classification as best as possible. The developers of the guideline recognize the fundamental differences that exist between fossil and renewable energy resources with respect to availability, accessibility, lifetime, and quality. Any quantitative comparison between fossil and renewable energy resources, including offshore wind, is therefore limited. For instance, O&G resources are finite and there may be significant uncertainty associated with the amount of the resource. In contrast, aboveground renewable resources, such as offshore wind, do not generally deplete over time but can vary significantly subhourly, daily, seasonally, and annually. The intent of this guideline is to make these differences transparent and develop an offshore wind resource classification that conforms to established fossil resource classifications where possible. This guideline also provides methods to quantitatively compare certain offshore wind energy resources to O&G resource classes for specific applications. Finally, this guideline identifies areas where analogies to established O&G terminology may be inappropriate or subject to misinterpretation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

GeoRePORT Protocol Volume VI: Resource Size Assessment Tool

GeoRePORT is based on the concept that a geothermal system can be described both in terms of the quality of the geothermal resource as it relates to the potential to extract heat ("Resource Grade") and the progress of research and development over the lifetime of the project ("Project Progress"). Resource grade and project progress are reported for three assessment categories: geologic, technical, and socio-economic. Each category has specific criteria and guidelines for assessing both resource grade and project progress, as outlined in each of the following assessment tools (and associated colors): (1) Geological Assessment Tool (representative colors: reds, oranges, browns); (2) Technical Assessment Tool (representative colors: blues, purples); (3) Socio-Economic Assessment Tool (representative colors: greens, yellows). Additionally, users may need to estimate the project size (often reported in MWe or MWth). The resource size assessment tool (RSAT) is an essential addition to GeoRePORT due to the economic and legal context of geothermal development. In order to utilize a geothermal resource, a competitive Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), or similar, often must be obtained, for which the resource's power capacity must be demonstrated. To determine that a geothermal heat or power project is worthy of development, investors or other funding mechanisms often require information on the anticipated heat and/or power potential of the reservoir. They might also be interested in the certainty of that estimate. However, proving the existence and size of a geothermal resource is comparatively expensive and risky relative to other renewable technologies; it can cost developers 5 to 10 million USD to demonstrate a financially viable geothermal resource (Young et al. 2017). GeoRePORT aims to address this barrier to development by providing a consistent and clear assessment of resource quality and certainty. The RSAT will enable GeoRePORT users to not only qualitatively report on a given a resource, but also to compare standard methodologies for quantitatively estimating a resource size in terms of potential heat and/or power output.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Novel Approach to Simulating Diagnostic Capabilities in Medical Resource Risk Assessment

Diagnostics represent a key subset of medical resources considered for helping mitigate and control spaceflight medical risk. Historically, when modeling the medical risk domain for spaceflight, diagnostic resources have been handled like any other medical resource used for treatment. That is to say, the resource being unavailable will result in the related condition having suboptimal treatment outcomes. However in the real world, should a diagnostic resource be unavailable, a more analogous effect would be that the condition might be misdiagnosed, and thus inappropriate treatment applied. This talk presents an alternative means of representing diagnostic resources within the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) that can simulate the effect both in risk, resource consumption, and competition for resources of a missing or depleted diagnostic. The scenario where a differential diagnosis may not be possible for abdominal conditions that use an ultrasound machine as a diagnostic tool is considered. Two approaches for modeling the effect of not having a diagnostic capability on the medical system are demonstrated. In the “simple” approach, it is assumed that any abdominal condition requiring the ultrasound machine for diagnosis is mis-diagnosed and treated as an appendicitis. This is represented by replacing the treatment for the affected conditions with the treatment for appendicitis, thereby changing the optimized medical set available for treatment for the remainder of the mission. In the “complex” approach, MEDPRAT treatment clusters are utilized to capture and represent overlapping treatment between the misdiagnosed condition and appendicitis. This elicits both the effect that inappropriate treatment is applied, resulting in wasted resource consumption, and that treatment which was truly needed for the misdiagnosed condition was not applied, which reduces the treatment effectiveness. In this talk, results comparing the simple and complex diagnostic capability approach to a baseline where the diagnostic is treated as a traditional resource is presented. Either approach provides an option for a more analogous representation of diagnostic resources and provides insight into how the modeled spaceflight medical resources and outcomes change when that diagnostic is unavailable.

C. M. Gasiewski↗
DOE OSTI2014

Taxonomy for Modeling Demand Response Resources

Demand response resources are an important component of modern grid management strategies. Accurate characterizations of DR resources are needed to develop systems of optimally managed grid operations and to plan future investments in generation, transmission, and distribution. The DOE Demand Response and Energy Storage Integration Study (DRESIS) project researched the degree to which demand response (DR) and energy storage can provide grid flexibility and stability in the Western Interconnection. In this work, DR resources were integrated with traditional generators in grid forecasting tools, specifically a production cost model of the Western Interconnection. As part of this study, LBNL developed a modeling framework for characterizing resource availability and response attributes of DR resources consistent with the governing architecture of the simulation modeling platform. In this report, we identify and describe the following response attributes required to accurately characterize DR resources: allowable response frequency, maximum response duration, minimum time needed to achieve load changes, necessary pre- or re-charging of integrated energy storage, costs of enablement, magnitude of controlled resources, and alignment of availability. We describe a framework for modeling these response attributes, and apply this framework to characterize 13 DR resources including residential, commercial, and industrial end-uses. We group these end-uses into three broad categories based on their response capabilities, and define a taxonomy for classifying DR resources within these categories. The three categories of resources exhibit different capabilities and differ in value to the grid. Results from the production cost model of the Western Interconnection illustrate that minor differences in resource attributes can have significant impact on grid utilization of DR resources. The implications of these findings will be explored in future DR valuation studies.

Olsen, Daniel↗
DOE OSTI2013

Idaho National Laboratory Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for 2013

This report describes the cultural resource monitoring activities of the Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL) Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Office during 2013. Throughout the year, thirty-eight cultural resource localities were revisited including: two locations with Native American human remains, one of which is also a cave; fourteen additional caves; seven prehistoric archaeological sites ; four historic archaeological sites; one historic trail; one nuclear resource (Experimental Breeder Reactor-I, a designated National Historic Landmark); and nine historic structures located at the Central Facilities Area. Of the monitored resources, thirty-three were routinely monitored, and five were monitored to assess project compliance with cultural resource recommendations along with the effects of ongoing project activities. On six occasions, ground disturbing activities within the boundaries of the Power Burst Facility/Critical Infrastructure Test Range Complex (PBF/CITRC) were observed by INL CRM staff prepared to respond to any additional finds of Native American human remains. In addition, two resources were visited more than once as part of the routine monitoring schedule or to monitor for additional damage. Throughout the year, most of the cultural resources monitored had no visual adverse changes resulting in Type 1determinations. However, Type 2 impacts were noted at eight sites, indicating that although impacts were noted or that a project was operating outside of culturally cleared limitations, cultural resources retained integrity and noted impacts did not threaten National Register eligibility. No new Type 3 or any Type 4 impacts that adversely impacted cultural resources and threatened National Register eligibility were observed at cultural resources monitored in 2013.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2013

Cultural Resource Investigations for the Resumption of Transient Testing of Nuclear Fuels and Material at the Idaho National Laboratory

The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) has a need to test nuclear fuels under conditions that subject them to short bursts of intense, high-power radiation called ‘transient testing’ in order to gain important information necessary for licensing new nuclear fuels for use in U.S. nuclear power plants, for developing information to help improve current nuclear power plant performance and sustainability, for improving the affordability of new generation reactors, for developing recyclable nuclear fuels, and for developing fuels that inhibit any repurposing into nuclear weapons. To meet this mission need, DOE is considering alternatives for re-use and modification of existing nuclear reactor facilities to support a renewed transient testing program. One alternative under consideration involves restarting the Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) reactor located at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site in southeastern Idaho. This report summarizes cultural resource investigations conducted by the INL Cultural Resource Management Office in 2013 to support environmental review of activities associated with restarting the TREAT reactor at the INL. These investigations were completed in order to identify and assess the significance of cultural resources within areas of potential effect associated with the proposed action and determine if the TREAT alternative would affect significant cultural resources or historic properties that are eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. No archaeological resources were identified in the direct area of potential effects for the project, but four of the buildings proposed for modifications are evaluated as historic properties, potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. This includes the TREAT reactor (building #), control building (building #), guardhouse (building #), and warehouse (building #). The proposed re-use of these historic properties is consistent with original missions related to nuclear reactor testing and is expected to result in no adverse effects to their historic significance. Cultural resource investigations also involved communication with representatives from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to characterize cultural resources of potential tribal concern. This report provides a summary of the cultural resources inventoried and assessed within the defined areas of potential effect for the resumption of transient testing at the INL. Based on these analyses, proposed activities would have no adverse effects on historic properties within the APEs that have been defined. Other archaeological resources and cultural resources of potential concern to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and others that are located near the APEs are also discussed with regard to potential indirect impacts. The report concludes with general recommendations for measures to reduce impacts to all identified resources.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Task 2 Report - A GIS-Based Technical Potential Assessment of Domestic Energy Resources for Electricity Generation

The purpose of this report is to support the Lao Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) in assessing the technical potential of domestic energy resources for utility scale electricity generation in the Lao PDR. Specifically, this work provides assessments of technical potential, and associated maps of developable areas, for energy technologies of interest. This report details the methodology, assumptions, and datasets employed in this analysis to provide a transparent, replicable process for future analyses. The methodology and results presented are intended to be a fundamental input to subsequent decision making and energy planning-related analyses. This report is the second output of the Energy Alternatives Study for the Lao PDR (Energy Alternatives Study), a collaboration led by MEM and the United States Agency for International Development under the auspices of the Smart Infrastructure for the Mekong program.1 The Energy Alternatives Study is composed of five successive tasks that collectively support the project’s goals as shown in FIGURE ES-1. This work is focused on Task 2 – Assess technical potential of domestic energy resources for electricity generation . The work was carried out by a team from the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in collaboration with MEM and other Lao power sector stakeholders. This work concentrates on domestic energy resources for utility-scale electricity generation and considers solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, biomass, and coal resources. This work does not consider potentially imported energy resources (e.g., natural gas) or domestic energy resources that are not present in sufficient quantity for utility-scale generation (e.g., geothermal resources). A technical potential assessment of hydropower resources is currently not feasible due to the absence of required data including site-level assessments of multiple characteristics (e.g., geology environment and access) as well as spatial data on estimated non-exploited hydropower resources (Lee et al. 2018). Previous studies estimated total hydropower resource potential to be between 23,000 and 26,000 MW, of which approximately 3,894 MW has been developed (IES and MKE 2016; MEM 2015b, 2011). MEM and Électricité du Laos have gained significant experience in the evaluation and development of hydropower resources and expect to develop close to 10,034 MW of additional capacity by 2025 (MEM 2017).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2016

There is Nothing Here for You: Passive Institutional Controls and Preemptive Resource Exploitation - 16197

The Department of Energy (DOE) Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) is required by Title 40 CFR Part 191.14(c) and Title 40 CFR Part 194.43 to develop a Passive Institutional Controls (PICs) program to prevent the likelihood for future human intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The purpose of this paper is to explore how the exploitation of resources under nuclear waste repositories as a part of PICs could reduce the risk of future human intrusion. The WIPP, located in the northern Permian Basin near Carlsbad, New Mexico, is a geologic repository for the permanent isolation of defense-related transuranic waste. In 1995, a series of geophysical surveys by the New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources estimated the total hydrocarbon reserves underneath the WIPP, which included a 16-section area plus a one mile buffer. Since that time the Delaware Basin well database has been maintained to closely monitor hydrocarbon extraction activities. The database was used in compiling relevant oil and gas extraction data retrieved from The New Mexico Oil Conservation Division. The volume of hydrocarbons extracted from 1995 to the present suggests that if current extraction growth trends continue (as historic market and production data indicate they will), all known crude oil reserves under the WIPP, obtainable through current extraction technology, will be depleted within approximately 10 years, i.e., by 2026. This is well before the anticipated WIPP closure and start of the Active Institutional Controls (AICs) program called for in 40 CFR Part 194.41(b). In addition, gas resources, although more difficult to forecast, are not expected to last beyond 2137. Title 40 CFR 194.33 states, 'Inadvertent and intermittent intrusion by drilling for resources... is the most severe human intrusion scenario'. This human intrusion scenario is the feature, event, and process (FEP) that performance assessment (PA) has identified as having the most significant impact on radionuclide releases during the 10,000 year regulatory period for the WIPP. Title 40 CFR 194.43 requires a PICs program which contains '... [records] in the international archives that would likely be consulted by individuals in search of unexploited resources'. Due to political, social, and economic motivators for resource exploration and exploitation, the potential future absence of hydrocarbon resources under the WIPP is important in deterring possible human intrusion. To minimize the risk of future human intrusion, it may be necessary to consider actively removing as many of the exploitable hydrocarbon resources under and around a nuclear waste repository as is practicable before the end of the period of AICs (i.e., 100 years after closure of the repository). Additionally, communicating the absence of hydrocarbon resources under a nuclear repository should take a prominent role in any PICs program. Due to its high-cost nature, exploratory drilling of any kind currently involves cost/benefit analysis. If in the future the economic realities of resource exploration remain similar to today, and future oil companies know the resources for a particular area have already been heavily exploited, hypothetically, they would become less motivated to drill in that area. They would instead opt to explore an area with better prospects. It is important then that the remaining hydrocarbon reserves be clearly stated and prominently displayed. In essence we should communicate the message, loud and clear, 'There is nothing here for you'. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2016

The Future of Electricity Resource Planning

Electricity resource planning is the process of identifying longer-term investments to meet electricity reliability requirements and public policy goals at a reasonable cost. Resource planning processes provide a forum for regulators, electric utilities, and electricity industry stakeholders to evaluate the economic, environmental, and social benefits and costs of different investment options. By facilitating a discussion on future goals, challenges and strategies, resource planning processes often play an important role in shaping utility business decisions. Resource planning emerged more than three decades ago in an era of transition, where declining electricity demand and rising costs spurred fundamental changes in electricity industry regulation and structure. Despite significant changes in the industry, resource planning continues to play an important role in supporting investment decision making. Over the next two decades, the electricity industry will again undergo a period of transition, driven by technological change, shifting customer preferences and public policy goals. This transition will bring about a gradual paradigm shift in resource planning, requiring changes in scope, approaches and methods. Even as it changes, resource planning will continue to be a central feature of the electricity industry. Its functions — ensuring the reliability of high voltage (“bulk”) power systems, enabling oversight of regulated utilities and facilitating low-cost compliance with public policy goals — are likely to grow in importance as the electricity industry enters a new period of technological, economic and regulatory change. This report examines the future of electricity resource planning in the context of a changing electricity industry. The report examines emerging issues and evolving practices in five key areas that will shape the future of resource planning: (1) central-scale generation, (2) distributed generation, (3) demand-side resources, (4) transmission and (5) uncertainty and risk management. The analysis draws on a review of recent resource plans for 10 utilities that reflect some of the U.S. electricity industry’s extensive diversity.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗