Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Governance”

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 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

An IIPG-Based Finite Element Framework in MOOSE for Modeling Fiber Reinforced Composite Failure Governed by Extrinsic Cohesive Laws

Many material and structure failures are initiated at the interface between two distinctive materials, such as the debonding of interfaces of matrix/fiber of composites or bulk matrix/inclusion in metals at micro-scales. Accurate and robust modeling of these interface failures is critical to the design of novel material and structure with improved functionality. This paper presents a robust implementation of a discontinuous Galerkin finite element method in MOOSE based on the Incomplete Interior Penalty Galerkin scheme for modeling material interface behavior. This DG-based interface method naturally accommodates important extrinsic cohesive zone material models and is capable of modeling the failures of material interfaces across which material properties are highly distinctive. We demonstrate a good performance of the proposed method using single fiber and multiple fiber debonding problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Facilitator's Perspective on Government Public Meetings on the Environmental and Energy Issues: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Example - 20428

Many Federal, and State agencies, are required by policy or regulation, to hold a public meeting on a proposed regulatory action. These may be on a specific licensing issue or they may be to obtain public advice on generic issues, such as a proposed rulemaking or policy issue. Environmental or energy issues may often involve emotional behavior on the part of the public, and sometimes anger or protests. Consequently, trained facilitators are often used to 'facilitate' the meeting to reduce the tension and to help the meeting run smoothly. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ('NRC') has had considerable experience with public meetings, emotional behavior by the public, and the use of facilitators. This paper will describe the history of the NRC with public meetings and public engagement, the issues that raise concerns by certain segments of the public, and how a facilitator will attempt to reduce the concern and anxiety at the meeting and to run a fair and constructive meeting. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

SAE Government-Industry - Heavy-Duty Policy: Panel Discussion (G203)

Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are 21% of US transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and a major source of air pollution. In this talk to present some results exploring how the total cost of driving (TCD) of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including battery electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (EVs and FCEVs), could evolve under alternative scenarios. Results show that with continued improvements in vehicles and fuels, ZEVs can rapidly become viable, potentially reaching TCD parity or better compared to diesel vehicles by 2035 for all market segments. For heavy long-haul trucks, EVs become competitive on a TCD basis at charging costs below $0.18/kWh, while FCEVs become competitive on a TCD basis at hydrogen costs below $5/kg. A full transition to ZEV sales by 2035 results in 65% emissions reductions by 2050 compared to 2019 without supportive policies. Incentives such as the Inflation Reduction Act vehicle purchase credits further accelerate ZEV TCD competitiveness with major adoption opportunities over the next five years.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electronic Waste (E-Waste) Recycling: Barriers and Opportunities for State, Local, and Tribal Governments

Electronic waste, or e-waste, encompasses end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment, including computers, monitors, televisions, printers, cell phones, household appliances with electronic components, and small consumer devices containing batteries or circuitry. E-waste is one of the fastest-growing components of the U.S. waste stream, with nearly 8 million tons generated in 2022. E-waste presents two related public-interest considerations. First, e-waste contains economically and strategically important materials: base metals (copper, aluminum, iron, steel), precious metals (gold, silver, platinum group metals), and critical materials such as rare earth elements, gallium, and indium that appear on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) 2025 List of Critical Minerals. Second, many electronic devices contain hazardous constituents - including lead, mercury, cadmium, and brominated flame retardants - as well as rechargeable batteries that can pose fire risks during handling. Effective management of these constituents helps protect workers, communities, and the environment. In the United States, it is estimated that less than 20% of e-waste is formally collected and recycled, leaving over 6 million tons landfilled or otherwise unrecovered. This fact sheet provides state and local decision-makers an overview of (1) e-waste composition and recoverable materials, (2) technology pathways used to recover those materials, and (3) examples of operational and partnership structures used to provide e-waste recycling capacity in the United States. It is intended to complement existing collection-program guidance available through U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other sources.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Macrovoid resolved simulations of transport through HPRO relevant membrane geometries

Modeling the transport properties such as diffusivity and permeability of high pressure reverse osmosis (HPRO) membranes is critical for the selection and manufacture of membranes suitable for operation under high pressure. These properties can be significantly affected by the changes in heterogeneous pore structures due to compaction. Here, the modeling platform presented in this work resolves the two scale porosity in HPRO relevant membranes. A synthetic membrane geometry is constructed based on available experimental visualizations of pore structures. The simulations directly capture the flow channeling that results from a combination of material properties and geometric features of the macrovoids. A parametric study is presented to account for the transition of flow characteristics from a material governed regime to a macrovoid governed regime. Permeability of the membrane is evaluated using the simulation data and compared with an existing model that scales with the square of tortuosity over a range of material properties. The model is found to perform well under a narrow range of tortuosity while deviating from the calculated permeabilities at extreme conditions. The effective permeability of the membrane is found to vary by at least two orders of magnitude between the two flow regimes. It is also observed that tortuosity is a bounded property with its upper limit determined by the macrovoid geometry. Consequently, the tortuosity based correlations fail near a flow regime that is mainly governed by the macrovoids. The modeled permeability can be more than an order of magnitude smaller than the simulation result. A new model based on flux-weighted porosity of a membrane is introduced and its correlation with tortuosity is studied. The model agrees with the simulated data as, in addition to tortuosity, it also accounts for the flux partition within and outside the flow channels. Such correlations enable extending the existing understanding of flow characteristics to enhance predictability of porous media models.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Advancing Urban Water Resilience: Coproducing Knowledge through Civic–Academic Global Partnerships on Water and Climate

As extreme weather events become more pronounced, the vulnerabilities associated with the urban water supply and wastewater systems in megacities are intensified in multiple interconnected dimensions. These multifaceted water challenges can benefit from enhanced cross-sectoral collaboration and sharing of critical knowledge, which are essential for sustainable and adaptive water governance frameworks. In this context, the Megacity Alliance for Water and Climate (MAWAC)–Europe and North America Region (ENAR) Working Group convened a workshop in March 2023, followed by a subsequent workshop in London, United Kingdom, from 11 to 13 September 2024. These workshops aimed to investigate and devise solutions for the cascading hazards with water systems. The solutions examined various aspects focused on climate adaptation and mitigation, stormwater management, and the governance of water and wastewater systems. Additionally, discussions highlighted the importance of community engagement, economic considerations, equity, and effective communication in addressing these pressing challenges. Over the course of 3 days, experts from academia, government agencies, and industry engaged in meaningful discussions on digital modeling for integrated water management, climate-informed urban planning, and public–private–academic partnerships (Fig. 1). Case studies from cities such as New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Chicago highlighted innovative governance strategies for managing water and wastewater systems, promoting water reuse, planning infrastructure, and fostering stakeholder-driven and stakeholder-informed adaptation. The workshop participants emphasized the need for data-driven decision-making, scalable governance models, and knowledge-sharing networks to enhance urban water governance for sustainability and resilience. This workshop report presents the key takeaways from the 3-day convening, providing a roadmap for integrating scientific research, policy frameworks, and emerging technologies to address water challenges faced by megacities.

Hydrologic models↗