Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “PROFITS”

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 271 records · Page 15
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Human Factors and Technologies Design to Improve User Acceptance of Pooled Rideshare for Increasing Transportation System Energy Efficiency

This multi-year project delivered a comprehensive, human-factors-driven framework to understand, model, and improve pooled rideshare (PR) adoption in the United States. Through three large-scale national survey studies involving more than 16,000 participants across multiple cities and demographic groups, the research established one of the most extensive datasets to date on user perceptions, behavioral barriers, and service expectations related to pooled rideshare. These data revealed key human factors barriers of user acceptance of PR and suggested potential actionable experience optimizations that could lead to increased PR usage. This foundational knowledge guided the development of novel human-factors models and behavioral choice models that quantify how psychological, demographic, and trip-level factors influence willingness to pool. Building on these empirical insights, the project developed advanced behavioral modeling tools, including mixed logit and integrated choice and latent variable models, to capture both observable and latent influences on PR adoption. These models significantly improved the ability to predict riders’ acceptance of pooled trips, explaining choice heterogeneity through latent constructs such as safety, service experience, privacy concerns, time sensitivity, and environmental attitudes. Together, these models provide a robust analytical foundation for designing PR systems that more effectively meet user needs. The project translated human-factors insights and behavioral models into actionable technology innovations by extending POLARIS—an agent-based, activity-based travel simulation platform—into a fully functional pooled rideshare simulation environment. New PR modules, acceptance models, and regional scenarios were implemented for Greenville, SC and Austin, TX, enabling high-fidelity validation of algorithmic strategies under realistic demand and traffic conditions. The simulation platform supported the development and evaluation of adaptive discount-based assignment algorithms, enhanced willingness-to-pay formulations, demographic-aware incentive mechanisms, and a proactive joint assignment and repositioning strategy. Simulation results demonstrated substantial gains in pooling uptake, average vehicle occupancy, energy efficiency, and fleet profitability. In Greenville, pooling adoption more than doubled, while reductions in vehicle-miles traveled and energy consumption were significant. In Austin, pooling improvements were achieved with minimal service-quality trade-offs, and profitability increased across all fleet sizes. Through this research, we developed a comprehensive understanding of the human factors barriers that limit user acceptance of pooled rideshare services. These insights enabled the design of human-factors-aware pooled rideshare technologies that more effectively address user concerns and improve adoption rates. By integrating these models into an advanced agent-based simulation framework, we demonstrated that higher adoption of pooled rideshare can lead to measurable improvements in energy efficiency and system performance. Together, these contributions establish a validated pathway from human-centered analysis to technology development and energy-saving outcomes, supporting national goals for more sustainable and efficient mobility systems.

Jia, Yunyi↗
DOE OSTI2026

Resilient Crop Production for the Bioeconomy: Frontier Science for the Bioeconomy Workshop Series

A bioeconomy based on energy, chemicals, and bioproducts derived from nonfood crops promotes U.S. prosperity, energy independence, and national security. Crop productivity (i.e., yield) affects profitability for farmers, whereas biomass and seed oil quality affects profitability for biorefineries through the conversion efficiency of feedstock crops into energy, chemicals, and bioproducts. Scientific breakthroughs in plant genetics and genomics, ecological processes, bioprocessing, microbial engineering and design, and conversion technologies have improved the potential market viability of products derived from nonfood crops specifically cultivated as biomass and seed oil feedstocks. Improving understanding of a plant’s complex responses to withstand or recover from stress is crucial to maintaining feedstock yield and quality, particularly in challenging production zones. Stress may be related to biotic or abiotic (i.e., nonliving) environmental conditions that negatively affect plant growth, development, and productivity. Research and development to enhance the environmental resilience of feedstock crops will enable improved production by minimizing losses during stress and improving production on currently economically nonviable marginal lands.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Core Model Proposal #373: Add Exogenous Shutdown Decider

This core model proposal adds an exogenous shutdown decider that can scale the output of a vintaged technology in years after its initial operating period. The output can be scaled above or below the technology vintage's original output. This proposal also includes code changes to disable the behavior of the s-curve shutdown decider and profit shutdown decider in calibration periods. The proposal does not include any changes to data to utilize the new exogenous shutdown decider (it only introduces the capability). It should be noted that the exogenous shutdown decider and s-curve shutdown decider serve similar functions and generally should not be used together; however, the exogenous shutdown decider and profit shutdown decider reflect different dynamics and can be used in combination.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Optimal Operations Management of Mobility-on-Demand Systems

The emergence of the sharing economy in urban transportation networks has enabled new fast, convenient and accessible mobility services referred to as Mobilty-on-Demand systems (e.g., Uber, Lyft, DiDi). These platforms have flourished in the last decade around the globe and face many operational challenges in order to be competitive and provide good quality of service. A crucial step in the effective operation of these systems is to reduce customers' waiting time while properly selecting the optimal fleet size and pricing policy. In this paper, we jointly tackle three operational decisions: (i) fleet size, (ii) pricing, and (iii) rebalancing, in order to maximize the platform's profit or its customers' welfare. To accomplish this, we first devise an optimization framework which gives rise to a static policy. Then, we elaborate and propose dynamic policies that are more responsive to perturbations such as unexpected increases in demand. We test this framework in a simulation environment using three case studies and leveraging traffic flow and taxi data from Eastern Massachusetts, New York City, and Chicago. Our results show that solving the problem jointly could increase profits between 1% and up to 50%, depending on the benchmark. Moreover, we observe that the proposed fleet size yield utilization of the vehicles in the fleet is around 75% compared to private vehicle utilization of 5%.

Wollenstein-Betech, Salomón↗
DOE OSTI2020

Crop Modeling Application to Improve Irrigation Efficiency in Year-Round Vegetable Production in the Texas Winter Garden Region

Given a rising demand for quality assurance, rather than solely yield, supplemental irrigation plays an important role to ensure the viability and profitability of vegetable crops from unpredictable changes in weather. However, under drought conditions, agricultural irrigation is often given low priority for water allocation. This reduced water availability for agriculture calls for techniques with greater irrigation efficiency, that do not compromise crop quality and yield, and that provide economic benefit for producers. This study developed vegetable growing models for eight different vegetable crops (bush bean, green bean, cabbage, peppermint, spearmint, yellow straight neck squash, zucchini, and bell pepper) based on data from several years of field research. The ALMANAC model accurately simulated yields and water use efficiency (WUE) of all eight vegetables. The developed vegetable models were used to evaluate the effects of various irrigation regimes on vegetable growth and production in several locations in the Winter Garden Region of Texas, under variable weather conditions. Based on our simulation results from 960 scenarios, optimal irrigation amounts that produce high yield as well as reasonable economic profit to producers were determined for each vegetable crop. Overall, yields for all vegetables increased as irrigation amounts increased. However, irrigation amounts did not have a sustainable impact on vegetable yield at high irrigation treatments, and the WUEs of most vegetables were not significantly different among various irrigation regimes. When vegetable yields were compared with water cost, the rate decreased as irrigation amounts increased. Thus, producers will not receive economic benefits when vegetable irrigation water demand is too high.

Kim, Sumin↗
DOE OSTI2020

Environmental and Economic Assessments and Uncertainties of Multiple Lignocellulosic Biomass Utilization for Bioenergy Products: Case Studies

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic analysis (TEA) were applied to assess the economic feasibility and environmental benefits of utilizing multiple biomass feedstocks for bioenergy products under three different technological pathways with consideration of uncertainties. Three cases were studied for the production of pellets, biomass-based electricity, and pyrolysis bio-oil. A Monte Carlo simulation was used to examine the uncertainties of fossil energy consumption, bioenergy conversion efficiency, stochastic production rate, etc. The cradle-to-gate LCA results showed that pellet production had the lowest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water and fossil fuels consumption (8.29 kg CO2 eq (equivalent), 0.46 kg, and 105.42 MJ, respectively). The conversion process presented a greater environmental impact for all three bioenergy products. When producing 46,929 Mg of pellets, 223,380 MWh of electricity, and 78,000 barrels of pyrolysis oil, the net present values (NPV) indicated that only pellet and electricity production were profitable with NPVs of $1.20 million for pellets, and $5.59 million for biopower. Uncertainty analysis indicated that pellet production showed the highest uncertainty in GHG emission, and bio-oil production had the least uncertainty in GHG emission but had risks producing greater-than-normal amounts of GHG. Biopower production had the highest probability to be a profitable investment with 85.23%.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Assessment of Economic Viability of Direct Current Fast Charging Infrastructure Investments for Electric Vehicles in the United States

As the global transportation sector increasingly adopts electric vehicles, the demand for advanced and accessible charging infrastructure is rising. In addition to at-home electric vehicle (EV) charging, there is a growing need for the swift development of commercial direct current fast charging (DCFC) stations to meet on-the-go EV charging demands. While government funds are available to support the expansion of the EV charging network in the United States, the establishment of a robust nationwide EV charging infrastructure requires significant private sector investment. This study was conducted to assess the economic feasibility of various business models for fast charging stations in the U.S. using two case studies and exploring different operational strategies including sole ownership and collaborative ventures with public and private entities. The results indicate that based on the current adoption and utilization rates in the U.S., the business model involving an owner-operator collaborating with a public partner ensures profitability and protects the investment in DCFC stations from financial losses. The study also highlights that demand charges and electricity retail prices are the factors that affect the profitability of a DCFC station.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Beyond Leakage: Non-Revenue Water Loss and Economic Sustainability

Water loss in urban supply systems poses significant challenges for water utility companies worldwide, affecting both sustainable access to clean water and the financial viability of utility operations. This study analyzes the evolution of water losses in high-level supply systems from 2017 to 2021 in Portugal, focusing on its implications for the profitability of water utility companies across NUTs II regions. Drawing on data from various sources, including the National Information System for Water Resources, PORDATA, ERSAR, and ORBIS, this analysis identifies trends, patterns, and potential factors influencing water loss dynamics. Key components of the analysis include calculating average annual losses, examining unbilled water percentages, and conducting regression analysis to quantify the impact of water loss on profit margins. The findings contribute to the literature on water loss management and financial performance in the water utility sector, offering insights for policymakers, water utility managers, and stakeholders to enhance financial sustainability and reduce water losses.

Santos, Eleonora (ORCID:0000000346930804)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Hydrogen-Battery Hybrid Energy System on Repurposed Offshore Platforms for Efficient Clean-Energy Transition

Due to the rising global energy demand and enhanced awareness of the environmental impact of fossil fuels, the Gulf of Mexico, traditionally known for oil extraction, offers a distinct chance to repurpose the existing offshore infrastructure. With the depletion of oil reserves, it is feasible to adapt previously utilized floating platforms for extraction to generate renewable energy, specifically through wind-generated power and hydrogen production. This adaptation seeks to promote a transport system that is more ecologically friendly in the future. Offshore wind turbines serve as the main energy source, with help from battery storage and hydrogen production to enhance the overall system performance, hydrogen creation, fuel, and electricity delivery for sustainable energy production. The system is divided into two distinct cases, each evaluated for cost, performance, and feasibility, with a focus on minimizing both the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) and the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH). The first case examines the integration of offshore wind turbines with hydrogen production. Excess electricity generated by wind turbines is directed toward hydrogen production via electrolysis. The hydrogen produced can be used as fuel for vehicles or transported to the shore via pipelines. The second case investigates a technology that combines wind turbines with battery storage. The batteries possess an ability to supply electricity for a continuous duration of 4 hours maximum each day. The main objective is to reduce the LCOE by considering the battery's charging and discharging cycles, together with the uncertain attributes of wind power and battery deterioration. The produced energy can be distributed for onshore applications or utilized for the purpose of offsetting offshore loads such as subsea oil and gas production, transportation, etc. The offshore hydrogen-battery hybrid system is improved via three advanced algorithms, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), and Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO). In Case 1, PSO improves hydrogen production by efficiently managing the electrolyzer’s power consumption, decreasing production costs significantly. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is applied to improve the efficiency of the electrolyzer, reducing production costs and achieving an optimized CAPEX of $240.00 million (from an initial $300.00 million) and OPEX of $9.60 million per year. This system produces 4,720,000 kg of hydrogen annually, with a Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH) of $6.40/kg and an annual profit of $9.27 million. In Case 2, GWO effectively reduces the overall energy cost by improving the charge-discharge management of batteries, which extends battery life and optimizes their use. The second case focuses on integrating battery storage, optimized using the Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), which enhances battery charge-discharge cycles, extending battery life and lowering costs. This system achieves an optimized CAPEX of $204.80 million (from an initial $256.00 million) and OPEX of $9.29 million per year, producing 310883.39 MWh of electricity annually at a Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of $86.13/MWh, with an annual profit of $6.25 million. The implementation of a comprehensive strategy results in a substantial reduction in costs, improved energy efficiency, and a dependable supply of both electric power and hydrogen, emphasizing the benefits of converting offshore oil platforms for clean energy transition. This study explores a clean strategy to enable cost-effective repurposing of offshore O&G platforms. Both cases highlight the economic and technical feasibility of transitioning offshore oil platforms to clean energy systems, demonstrating substantial cost reductions and reliable energy and hydrogen supplies for sustainable energy production.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

An overview of wind-energy-production prediction bias, losses, and uncertainties

Abstract. The financing of a wind farm directly relates to the preconstruction energy yield assessments which estimate the annual energy production for the farm. The accuracy and the precision of the preconstruction energy estimates can dictate the profitability of the wind project. Historically, the wind industry tended to overpredict the annual energy production of wind farms. Experts have been dedicated to eliminating such prediction errors in the past decade, and recently the reported average energy prediction bias is declining. Herein, we present a literature review of the energy yield assessment errors across the global wind energy industry. We identify a long-term trend of reduction in the overprediction bias, whereas the uncertainty associated with the prediction error is prominent. We also summarize the recent advancements of the wind resource assessment process that justify the bias reduction, including improvements in modeling and measurement techniques. Additionally, because the energy losses and uncertainties substantially influence the prediction error, we document and examine the estimated and observed loss and uncertainty values from the literature, according to the proposed framework in the International Electrotechnical Commission 61400-15 wind resource assessment standard. From our findings, we highlight opportunities for the industry to move forward, such as the validation and reduction of prediction uncertainty and the prevention of energy losses caused by wake effect and environmental events. Overall, this study provides a summary of how the wind energy industry has been quantifying and reducing prediction errors, energy losses, and production uncertainties. Finally, for this work to be as reproducible as possible, we include all of the data used in the analysis in appendices to the article.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2021

Grid Service Values of Generic Marginal Building Flexibility in Modeled 2030 U.S. Power Systems

The datasets include the capacity, energy, and ancillary service values of a marginal kilowatt-hour (kWh) of generic, daily, shiftable building flexibility as a presumed market entrant in the 2030 U.S. power systems. The results should be interpreted along with the caveats listed in "Valuation of Building Flexibility: Grid Service Value for Initial Market Entrants in Projected 2030 United States Power Systems", which also documents the methods used for the study. The factors examined in the study include: grid scenario, region, original usage hour in the day (local time), and building flexibility parameters - efficiency, dissipation, and shifting window include max pre-shift and max post-shift. Filenames in the datasets: The filenames contain information on the grid scenario, and the building flexibility efficiency and dissipation. For example: MidCase_2030_efficiency1.25_dissipation0.05_value.csv contains all results under Mid RE 2020, efficiency = 1.25, and dissipation = 0.05. * MidCase = Mid RE Each .csv file contains: region: The location of the building flexibility, aligned with U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) Electricity Market Module regions. max_pre_shift: Part of building flexibility shifting window parameter, indicates the max number of hours the building flexibility can shift earlier. max_post_shift: Part of building flexibility shifting window parameter, indicates the max number of hours the building flexibility can shift later. local_datetime: Original datetime of 1kWh of building energy consumption. local_orig_h: Original usage hour (1-24) of building energy consumption, ignores daylight saving. local_shift_to: The datetime to when building energy consumption shifts, if shifting happens. If no shifting occurs, this cell is left blank. energy: Net energy value of energy shifting. capacity: Net capacity value of energy shifting. shifting_value: Net energy plus capacity value of energy shifting. spin: Spin reserve value at the original datetime of consumption. flex: Flexible reserve value at the original datetime of consumption. reg: Regulation reserve value at the original datetime of consumption. total_profit: Assuming the building flexibility is capable of providing energy, capacity, and ancillary services, total profit is the maximum value of energy shifting value, spin reserve value, flexible reserve value, and regulation reserve value - one of the four choices at any given hour - because we do not allow its value to be double-counted.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
NASA NTRS1974

Water resources

Substantial progress has been made in applying ERTS-1 data to water resources problems, nevertheless, more time and effort still appear necessary for further quantification of results, including the specification of thematic measurement accuracies. More modeling can be done very profitably. In particular, more strategy models describing the processes wherein ERTS-1 data would be acquired, analyzed, processed, and utilized in operational situations could be profitably accomplished. It is generally observed that the ERTS-1 data applicability is evident in several areas and that the next most general and substantive steps in the implementation of the data in operational situations would be greatly encouraged by the establishment of an operational earth resources satellite organization and capability. Further encouragement of this operational capability would be facilitated by all investigators striving to document their procedures as fully as possible and by providing time and cost comparisons between ERTS-1 and conventional acquisition approaches.

Salomonson, V. V.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Commercializing the echocardioscope: A case study in biomedical technology transfer

The echocardioscope does not meet reasonable criteria for a profitable investment opportunity for most companies. While a demand for the product is a necessary condition for profitability, it is not sufficient. There has to be something at work on the supply side, some significant patent, or an opportunity to achieve a cost advantage based on volume, or something to prevent other companies from being able to produce the same product at the same or a lower cost.

Enthoven, A. C.↗
NASA NTRS1980

New technologies for solar energy silicon - Cost analysis of BCL process

New technologies for producing polysilicon are being developed to provide lower cost material for solar cells which convert sunlight into electricity. This article presents results for the BCL Process, which produces the solar-cell silicon by reduction of silicon tetrachloride with zinc vapor. Cost, sensitivity, and profitability analysis results are presented based on a preliminary process design of a plant to produce 1000 metric tons/year of silicon by the BCL Process. Profitability analysis indicates a sales price of $12.1-19.4 per kg of silicon (1980 dollars) at a 0-25 per cent DCF rate of return on investment after taxes. These results indicate good potential for meeting the goal of providing lower cost material for silicon solar cells.

Yaws, C. L.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Program on stimulating operational private sector use of Earth observation satellite information

Ideas for new businesses specializing in using remote sensing and computerized spatial data systems were developd. Each such business serves as an 'information middleman', buying raw satellite or aircraft imagery, processing these data, combining them in a computer system with customer-specific information, and marketing the resulting information products. Examples of the businesses the project designed are: (1) an agricultural facility site evaluation firm; (2) a mass media grocery price and supply analyst and forecaster; (3) a management service for privately held woodlots; (4) a brokerage for insulation and roofing contractors, based on infrared imagery; (5) an expanded real estate information service. In addition, more than twenty-five other commercially attractive ideas in agribusiness, forestry, mining, real estate, urban planning and redevelopment, and consumer information were created. The commercial feasibility of the five business was assessed. This assessment included market surveys, revenue projections, cost analyses, and profitability studies. The results show that there are large and enthusiastic markets willing to pay for the services these businesses offer, and that the businesses could operate profitably.

Eastwood, L. F., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Restructuring the US telecommunications industry - Impact on innovation

The Communications Act of 1934, which regulates the United States telecommunications industry, is becoming less able to deal with the changes brought by modern technology. Therefore, proposals are being made to restructure the industry. Breaking up AT&T into smaller firms would have only minor effects, since its ratio of R and D to sales has been near the median for large telephone companies. Restructuring AT&T into subsidiaries dealing at arms' length might cause a reordering of priorities toward more directly marketable and useful products, but too extensive a break-up could endanger Bell Labs' commitment to basic research. Regulation leads a firm to ignore true social value of possible products, expand into low profit markets, and favor capital-intensive over labor-intensive innovation. If regulatory lag occurs, a firm will produce cost-reducing innovation in order to increase its profit.

Agnew, C. E.↗