Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “location”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Locating Methyl-Etherified and Methyl-Esterified Uronic Acids in the Plant Cell Wall Pectic Polysaccharide Rhamnogalacturonan II

Rhamnogalacturonan II (RG-II) is a structurally complex pectic polysaccharide that exists as a borate ester cross-linked dimer in the cell walls of all vascular plants. The glycosyl sequence of RG-II is largely conserved, but there is evidence that galacturonic acid (GalA) methyl etherification and glucuronic acid (GlcA) methyl esterification vary in the A sidechain across plant species. Methyl esterification of the galacturonan backbone has also been reported but not confirmed. Here we describe a new procedure, utilizing aq. sodium borodeuteride (NaBD4)-reduced RG-II, to identify the methyl esterification status of backbone GalAs. Our data suggest that up to two different GalAs are esterified in the RG-II backbone. We also adapted a procedure based on methanolysis and NaBD4 reduction to identify 3-, 4-, and 3,4-O-methyl GalA in RG-II. These data, together with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization–time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF) MS analysis of sidechain A generated from selected RG-IIs and their NaBD4-reduced counterparts, suggest that methyl etherification of the ß-linked GalA and methyl esterification of the GlcA are widespread. Nevertheless, the extent of these modifications varies between plant species. Our analysis of the sidechain B glycoforms in RG-II from different dicots and nonpoalean monocots suggests that this sidechain has a minimum structure of an O-acetylated hexasaccharide (Ara-[MeFuc]-Gal-AceA-Rha-Api-). To complement these studies, we provide further evidence showing that dimer formation and stability in vitro is cation and borate dependent. Taken together, our data further refine the primary sequence and sequence variation of RG-II and provide additional insight into dimer stability and factors controlling dimer self-assembly.

BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

DE-EE0007069 – Location, Location, Efficiency! (L.L.E!) (Final Technical Report)

As a participant in Department of Energy's national Better Buildings Challenge, the City of Milwaukee's Environmental Collaboration Office and local partners developed a program to bundle and deliver energy efficiency services to commercial buildings and help bring energy efficiency technologies developed by DOE's Building Technology Office to market. This report summarizes the programs and its results.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Location Identifiers, Metadata, and Map for Field Measurements at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory, Colorado, USA (Version 3.3)

This dataset contains identifiers, metadata, and a map of the locations where field measurements have been conducted at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. This is version 3.3 of the dataset and replaces the prior version 3.2 (see below for details on changes between the versions). Dataset description: The East River-Taylor Watershed is the primary field site of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Researchers from several institutions generate highly diverse hydrological, biogeochemical, climate, vegetation, geological, remote sensing, and model data at the East-Taylor Watershed in collaboration with the WFSFA. Thus, the purpose of this dataset is to maintain an inventory of the field locations and instrumentation to provide information on the field activities in the East-Taylor Watershed and coordinate data collected across different locations, researchers, and institutions. The dataset contains (1) a README file with information on the various files, (2) three csv files describing the metadata collected for each surface point location, plot and region registered with the WFSFA, (3) csv files with metadata and contact information for each surface point location registered with the WFSFA, (4) a csv file with with metadata and contact information for plots, (5) a csv file with metadata for geographic regions and sub-regions within the watershed, (6) a compiled xlsx file with all the data and metadata which can be opened in Microsoft Excel, (7) a kml map of the locations plotted in the watershed which can be opened in Google Earth, (8) a jpg image of the kml map which can be viewed in any photo viewer, and (9) a zipped file with the registration templates used by the SFA team to collect location metadata. The zipped template file contains two csv files with the blank templates (point and plot), two csv files with instructions for filling out the location templates, and one compiled xlsx file with the instructions and blank templates together. Additionally, the templates in the xlsx include drop down validation for any controlled metadata fields. Persistent location identifiers (Location_ID) are determined by the WFSFA data management team and are used to track data and samples across locations. Dataset uses: This location metadata is used to update the Watershed SFA’s publicly accessible Field Information Portal (an interactive field sampling metadata exploration tool; https://wfsfa-data.lbl.gov/watershed/), the kml map file included in this dataset, and other data management tools internal to the Watershed SFA team. Version Information: The latest version of this dataset publication is version 3.3. This version contains 167 new point locations, 1 new plot, and 2 new geographic regions. Overall, there are a total of 1439 point locations, 75 plots, and 54 geographic regions. Additionally, the kml map of locations and image now includes two boundaries (Upper Ohio Creek (UO) and Carbon Creek (CA)) outside of the East River watershed (USGS HUC-10) and accompanying stream network that represents areas of focus. Refer to methods for further details on the version history. This dataset will be updated on a periodic basis with new measurement location information. Researchers interested in having their East-Taylor Watershed measurement locations added to this list should reach out to the WFSFA data management team at wfsfa-data@googlegroups.com. Acknowledgments: Please cite this dataset if using any of the location metadata in other publications or derived products. If using the location metadata for the 2018 NEON hyperspectral campaign, additionally cite Chadwick et al. (2020). doi:10.15485/1618130. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

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

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

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

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

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

CERF↗
DOE OSTI2022

ESS-DIVE Reporting Format for Location Metadata

The ESS-DIVE location metadata reporting format provides instructions and templates for reporting a minimum set of metadata for discrete point locations in geographic space represented by x, y, and z coordinates. This format was created based on a need for earth and environmental science researchers to more consistently provide metadata about locations where they conduct studies. To create the format, we incorporated elements from ESS-DIVE’s community reporting formats as well as 12 additional data standards or other data resources (e.g., databases, data systems, or repositories). In the template, we ask researchers to indicate unique locations using Location IDs and indicate hierarchies of locations through parent location IDs. We also provide additional optional fields for researchers to indicate how they measured the point location and the date and time that the location was first used as a research siteThis dataset contains support documentation for the reporting format (README.md and instructions.md), a terminology guide (guide.md), a crosswalk indicating how this reporting format relates to existing standards and data resources (Location_metadata_crosswalk.csv), a data dictionary (dd.csv), file-level metadata (flmd.csv), and the location metadata templates in both CSV (Location_metadata_template.csv) and Excel formats (Location_metadata_template.xlsx).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Evaluating the location capabilities of a regional infrasonic network in Utah, US, using both ray tracing-derived and empirical-derived celerity-range and backazimuth models

SUMMARY More realistic models for infrasound signal propagation across a region can be used to improve the precision and accuracy of spatial and temporal source localization estimates. Motivated by incomplete infrasound event bulletins in the Western US, the location capabilities of a regional infrasonic network of stations located between 84–458 km from the Utah Test and Training Range, Utah, USA, is assessed using a series of near-surface explosive events with complementary ground truth (GT) information. Signal arrival times and backazimuth estimates are determined with an automatic F-statistic based signal detector and manually refined by an analyst. This study represents the first application of three distinct celerity-range and backazimuth models to an extensive suite of realistic signal detections for event location purposes. A singular celerity and backazimuth deviation model was previously constructed using ray tracing analysis based on an extensive archive of historical atmospheric specifications and is applied within this study to test location capabilities. Similarly, a set of multivariate, season and location specific models for celerity and backazimuth are compared to an empirical model that depends on the observations across the infrasound network and the GT events, which accounts for atmospheric propagation variations from source to receiver. Discrepancies between observed and predicted signal celerities result in locations with poor accuracy. Application of the empirical model improves both spatial localization precision and accuracy; all but one location estimates retain the true GT location within the 90 per cent confidence bounds. Average mislocation of the events is 15.49 km and average 90 per cent error ellipse areas are 4141 km2. The empirical model additionally reduces origin time residuals; origin time residuals from the other location models are in excess of 160 s while residuals produced with the empirical model are within 30 s of the true origin time. We demonstrate that event location accuracy is driven by a combination of signal propagation model and the azimuthal gap of detecting stations. A direct relationship between mislocation, error ellipse area and increased station azimuthal gaps indicate that for sparse networks, detection backazimuths may drive location biases over traveltime estimates.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

State Strategies for Valuing Distributed Energy Resources in Cost-Effective Locations

The deployment of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs), small-scale electricity generation sources or controllable loads connected to the distribution system or a facility served by the distribution system, can have wide-ranging and positive impacts for the electricity grid. Interconnecting a DER in a high-value location on the grid can unlock benefits beyond those that accrue to the off-taker or asset owner. When DERs are deployed optimally, not only can the individual consumer benefit, but the local utility, the electricity system, and other ratepayers can benefit as well. By engaging in locational DER planning, states can help protect their communities and ratepayers and can help ensure the reliability and resilience of the electricity system. This report explores states' role in better integrating locational value into DER siting and development. It first outlines some of the benefits that can be achieved through the deployment of DERs in high-value locations. It then looks at state policy and regulatory roles and the tools states can use to influence the location of DER development. The report next examines the challenges of locational DER planning, with a particular focus on the challenges that states face in influencing the location of DER development. It highlights three case studies from states that engaged in locational DER planning through the Multistate Initiative to Develop Solar in Locations that Provide Benefits to the Grid and then presents several lessons learned from these efforts. The final section of this report summarizes some recent publications related to locational value of DERs in the form of an abbreviated literature review.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS1999

The Structure and Evolution of LOCBURST: The BATSE Burst Location Algorithm

The gamma-ray burst (GRB) location algorithm used to produce the BATSE GRB locations is described. The general flow of control of the current location algorithm is presented, and the significant properties of the various physical inputs required are identified. The development of the burst location algorithm during the releases of the BATSE IB, 2B, and 3B GRB catalogs is presented so that the reasons for the differences in the positions and error estimates between the catalogs can be understood. In particular, differences between the 2B and 3B locations are discussed for events that have moved significantly and the reasons for the changes explained. The locations of bursts located independently by the interplanetary network (IPN) are used to illustrate the effect on burst location accuracy of various components of the algorithm. IPN data and locations from other gamma-ray instruments are used to calculate estimates of the systematic errors on BATSE burst locations.

Pendleton, Geoffrey N.↗
NASA NTRS1998

The Structure of Evolution LOCBURST: The BATSE Burst Location Algorithm

The gamma-ray bursts (GRB) location algorithm used to produce the BATSE GRB locations is described. The general flow of control of the current location algorithm is presented and the significant properties of the various physical inputs required are identified. The development of the burst location algorithm during the releases of the BATSE 1B, 2B, and 3B gamma-ray burst catalogs is presented so that the reasons for the differences in the positions and error estimates between the catalogs can be understood. In particular, differences between the 2B and 3B locations are discussed for events that have moved significantly and the reasons for the changes explained. The locations of bursts located independently by the interplanetary network are used to illustrate the effect on burst location accuracy of various components of the algorithm. IPN data as well as locations from other gamma-ray instruments are used to calculate estimates of the systematic errors on BATSE burst locations.

Pendleton, Geoffrey N.↗