Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Infrastructure”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2024

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2024 (Q2 2024) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared to the infrastructure requirement scenario outlined in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report, "The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure" (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85654.pdf). This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the 18th report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and NREL publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Rising infrastructure inequalities accompany urbanization and economic development

Impending global urban population growth is expected to occur with considerable infrastructure expansion. However, our understanding of attendant infrastructure inequalities is limited, highlighting a critical knowledge gap in the sustainable development implications of urbanization. Using satellite data from 2000 to 2019, we examine country-level population-adjusted biases in infrastructure distribution within and between regions of varying urbanization levels and derive four key findings. First, we find long-run positive associations between infrastructure inequalities and both urbanization and economic development. Second, our estimates highlight increasing infrastructure inequalities across most of the countries examined. Third, we find greater future infrastructure inequality increases in the global south, where inequalities will rise more in countries with substantial urban primacy. Fourth, we find that infrastructure inequality may evolve differently than economic inequalities. Overall, advancing sustainable development vis-à-vis urbanization and economic development will require intentional infrastructure planning for spatial equity.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluating Offshore Infrastructure Integrity

Drilling in the offshore environment involves a complex network of infrastructure including pipelines, platforms, rigs, subsea installations, ports, and terminals. Government and industry partners have developed this network over many decades and it remains a critical part of the United States (U.S.) energy portfolio. Many of the major components of this system have been designed with a 20- to 30-year lifespan, yet consistent and growing energy demands support the need to extend the design life of existing infrastructure or repurpose it for secondary needs (i.e. enhanced oil recovery, carbon storage, and new wells). As a result, a growing portion of the offshore infrastructure in the U.S. is approaching or has exceeded its original design life. A critical step in ensuring the continued safe and effective operation of offshore infrastructure is developing a comprehensive understanding of the state of offshore infrastructure and the factors that effect it. The purpose of this project is to assess the current state of existing infrastructure and identify the factors involved in infrastructure degradation through the development and application of big data analytics, machine learning, and advanced spatio-temporal analysis. The project leverages existing data at NETL and combines it with new information on offshore oil and gas structures and the ambient offshore environment in an effort to identify patterns associated with infrastructure integrity. Building on the identified trends and patterns, this project incorporates exploratory analytics and spatial analysis tools in conjunction with machine learning and statistical models to characterize the condition of existing platforms in the offshore environment and predict their risk of failure.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2025

Planning Amidst Uncertainty: Identifying Core CCS Infrastructure Robust to Storage Uncertainty

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a critical technology for reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but its large-scale deployment is complicated by uncertainties in geological storage performance. These uncertainties pose significant financial and operational risks, as underperforming storage sites can lead to costly infrastructure modifications, inefficient pipeline routing, and economic shortfalls. To address this challenge, we propose a novel optimization workflow that is based on mixed-integer linear programming and explicitly integrates probabilistic modeling of storage uncertainty into CCS infrastructure design. This workflow generates multiple infrastructure scenarios by sampling storage capacity distributions, optimally solving each scenario using a mixed-integer linear programming model, and aggregating results into a heatmap to identify core infrastructure components that have a low likelihood of underperforming. A risk index parameter is introduced to balance trade-offs between cost, CO2 processing capacity, and risk of underperformance, allowing stakeholders to quantify and mitigate uncertainty in CCS planning. Applying this workflow to a CCS dataset from the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Utilization and Storage Partnership project reveals key insights into infrastructure resilience. Reducing the risk index from 15% to 0% is observed to lead to an 83.7% reduction in CO2 processing capacity and a 77.1% decrease in project profit, quantifying the trade-off between risk tolerance and project performance. Furthermore, our results highlight critical breakpoints, where small adjustments in the risk index produce disproportionate shifts in infrastructure performance, providing actionable guidance for decision-makers. Unlike prior approaches that aimed to cheaply repair underperforming infrastructure, our workflow constructs robust CCS networks from the ground up, ensuring cost-effective infrastructure under storage uncertainty. These findings demonstrate the practical relevance of incorporating uncertainty-aware optimization into CCS planning, equipping decision-makers with a tool to make informed project planning decisions.

Olson, Daniel↗
DOE OSTI2020

System Health and Status Reporting is Used to Improve Infrastructure Systems at the Hanford Site - 20449

Reliable physical infrastructure systems are vital to completing the clean-up mission and the start-up and commissioning of new nuclear waste processing facilities at the Hanford Site. Key infrastructure systems at Hanford include water, sewer, and electrical utilities, roads, telecommunications/network systems, and fire systems. All of the infrastructure systems are non-nuclear, General Service systems that are being maintained under formal engineering configuration control and none are specifically credited in any documented safety analysis (DSA). Starting in calendar year 2017, the Hanford Site's infrastructure and services contractor started producing system health and status reports for a total of 15 critical infrastructure systems as means to get a better understanding of each system's health and how it could be improved to ensure better and more reliable service delivery. As the reporting, tracking, and use of the metrics has matured, the number of systems for which reports are being developed has been expanded to a total of 23. Each of the critical infrastructure systems are assigned primary and alternate design authorities that complete qualifications on each assigned system. The design authorities actively manage and maintain configuration control on each of their systems and track metrics associated with availability, maintenance (corrective and preventive), and configuration of the technical baseline. The metrics are based on the principles established in Chapter V of DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety, [1] and have been tailored as appropriate to each of the key infrastructure systems. An overall assessment of system health is performed and documented on a routine basis (e.g., quarterly). Included in this documentation is a quantitative score for each of the metrics (i.e., availability, maintenance, configuration management) along with results of system walk-downs, description of any permanent design modifications, identification of new or emerging issues and vulnerabilities affecting the system, and an assessment by the design authority of actions necessary to improve the system health score. The overall status scores are calculated using a formula and based on a pre-determined grading scale, a color is assigned for simple presentation. The information gained from developing the reports is being used to (1) assist with making timely and better informed decisions through the use of solid technical bases that are increasing the overall reliability and capabilities of the Site's infrastructure systems as new expense and capital projects in the Reliability Projects Investment Portfolio (RPIP) are prioritized and executed; (2) feed the risk management program, and (3) integrate the technical content of Master Plans that describe the Site's needs for the system and the system's capabilities to meet those future needs. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Game-Theoretic Strategies for Cyber-Physical Infrastructures Under Component Disruptions

In this work, networked infrastructures of recursively defined systems composed of discrete cyber and physical components are considered. The components of basic systems at the finest levels can be disrupted by cyber or physical means, and can be reinforced to survive at certain costs. A problem of ensuring the infrastructure performance is formulated as a game between a provider and an attacker, who probabilistically choose components to reinforce and attack, respectively. The disruptions of this infrastructure are characterized using the aggregate failure correlation function that specifies the conditional failure probability of the infrastructure given the failure of an individual system at that level. The survival probabilities of basic systems satisfy simple product-form, first-order differential equations expressed in terms of the multiplier functions. The utility functions of the provider and attacker are composed of the reward and cost terms, both expressed in terms of the component reinforcement and attack probabilities. The Nash equilibrium of this game is characterized, along with the sensitivity functions of the survival probabilities of basic systems that highlight their dependence individually on the cost-benefit terms, the correlation functions, and the multiplier functions. These results are illustrated using simplified models of a distributed cloud servers infrastructure, a 5G data network infrastructure, a high performance computing federation, and a smart energy grid infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2021 (Q2). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the target infrastructure volume for 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the sixth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Third Quarter 2021)

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2021 (Q3). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the seventh report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Fourth Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the fourth calendar quarter of 2021 (Q4). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the eighth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Third Quarter 2022

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2022 (Q3 2022) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the eleventh report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Fourth Quarter 2022)

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the fourth calendar quarter of 2022 (Q4 2022) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the twelfth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (First Quarter 2023)

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2023 by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with a 2030 infrastructure requirement scenario. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the thirteenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2023

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2023 by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with a 2030 infrastructure requirement scenario. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the fourteenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Enabling human–infrastructure interfaces for inspection using augmented reality

Decaying infrastructure maintenance cost allocation depends heavily on accurate and safe inspection in the field. New tools to conduct inspections can assist in prioritizing investments in maintenance and repairs. The industrial revolution termed as “Industry 4.0” is based on the intelligence of machines working with humans in a collaborative workspace. Contrarily, infrastructure management has relied on the human for making day-to-day decisions. New emerging technologies can assist during infrastructure inspections, to quantify structural condition with more objective data. However, today’s owners agree in trusting the inspector’s decision in the field over data collected with sensors. If data collected in the field is accessible during the inspections, the inspector decisions can be improved with sensors. New research opportunities in the human–infrastructure interface would allow researchers to improve the human awareness of their surrounding environment during inspections. This article studies the role of Augmented Reality (AR) technology as a tool to increase human awareness of infrastructure in their inspection work. The domains of interest of this research include both infrastructure inspections (emphasis on the collection of data of structures to inform management decisions) and emergency management (focus on the data collection of the environment to inform human actions). This article describes the use of a head-mounted device to access real-time data and information during their field inspection. The authors leverage the use of low-cost smart sensors and QR code scanners integrated with Augmented Reality applications for augmented human interface with the physical environment. This article presents a novel interface architecture for developing Augmented Reality–enabled inspection to assist the inspector’s workflow in conducting infrastructure inspection works with two new applications and summarizes the results from various experiments. The main contributions of this work to computer-aided community are enabling inspectors to visualize data files from database and real-time data access using an Augmented Reality environment.

Maharjan, D.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: First Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2021 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the target infrastructure volume for 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the fifth report in a series. Previous reports from 2020 can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Public water supply infrastructure extensification and diversification in surface waters is insufficient to meet future demands in Texas

The data were developed to evaluate the capacity of existing and potential new surface water supply infrastructure to meet projected public water demands across districts in Texas under multiple future socioeconomic and climate scenarios. The database integrates hydrologic, water quality, infrastructure, energy, cost, demographic, and demand-projection information for candidate surface water supply locations. Candidate sites include stream reaches, waterbodies, reservoir surplus locations, and potential new reservoir sites. Water availability is characterized using historical and projected flow conditions, while site suitability is evaluated using five indicators: Water Availability Index (WAI), Water Quality Index (WQI), Energy Requirement Index (ERI), Water Treatment Cost (WTC), and Water Infrastructure Cost (WIC). The datasets include statewide candidate-site information, district-level demand projections under Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), runoff-based allocation constraints, climate-stress metrics, and optimization outputs evaluating alternative infrastructure planning strategies. Optimization results compare Business-as-Usual (BAU) and All Surface Water (AllSW) demand-management approaches under both scaled and fixed cost-cap strategies. Associated validation datasets provide district-level feasibility assessments, infrastructure selection outcomes, cost-cap utilization, demand satisfaction metrics, and constraint diagnostics. Additional datasets quantify projected changes in storage and flow conditions as well as water availability stress for both existing and newly selected intake locations under the SSP5 scenario for mid-century and late-century climate conditions. Together, these datasets support assessment of the extent to which surface-water infrastructure expansion and diversification strategies can satisfy future public water demands while accounting for hydrologic, economic, and planning constraints across Texas. Dataset(s) Description Dataset_preoptimization.xlsx Comprehensive pre-optimization dataset containing candidate water-supply sites and associated hydrologic, water-quality, infrastructure, climate, demographic, runoff, and demand-projection variables used as inputs to the optimization analyses. Includes variable descriptions and the full statewide candidate-site database. District_level_site_selection.zip - Compressed archive containing all SSP-specific district-level optimization result files MESIO_ssp1_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP1 (MESIO). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. MESID_ssp2_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP2 (MESID). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. LCMRD_ssp3_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP3 (LCMRD). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. IRDev-Low_ssp4l_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP4-Low (IRDev-Low). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. IRDev-High_ssp4h_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP4-High (IRDev-High). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. RSIM_ssp5_results.xlsx District-level site selection results for SSP5 (RSIM). Includes variable descriptions, BAU and AllSW site-selection results under scaled and fixed cost strategies, and district-level validation diagnostics. tx_hydrological_stress.xlsx Hydrological stress dataset for existing and newly selected intake locations. Includes projected mid-century and late-century changes, gain/loss classifications, planning strategy information, and accompanying variable descriptions. Also includes water-stress metrics derived from historical and projected low-flow conditions.

Okoye, Perpetua I. (ORCID:0000000215545033)↗
DOE OSTI2022

Offshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure Reuse for CCS: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico

The United States Gulf of Mexico has historically been a significant oil and gas producing region and continues to produce hydrocarbons today. As such, significant investments have been made to install oil and gas infrastructure such as pipelines, platforms, and wells. As these assets reach the end of their useful life or production associated with the assets is curtailed, the assets become a liability for both the owner/operators and the U.S. and state governments responsible for regulating the assets. There are costs and risks associated with safely decommissioning the assets, and in some cases, the assets may be abandoned (e.g., the owner is no longer a going concern). In parallel, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology has developed in the United States and interest and incentives for CCS projects have accelerated in recent years, with many public announcements of CCS projects in development in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico region. The region is particularly well-suited to CCS due to the high density of industry on the coastline (i.e., CO 2 sources) and favorable geology in the near-offshore region. CCS also requires the use of many of the same assets required for oil and gas production (pipelines, platforms, wells) and the oil and gas industry has direct experience with CO 2 transport and injection (i.e., EOR). Therefore, the combination of existing infrastructure in close proximity to potential CCS project sites appears to provide a potential “win-win” solution for re-use of existing oil and gas assets. This paper presents a high-level evaluation of oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico with the goals of identifying the scale of the opportunity (e.g., how much existing infrastructure is realistically re-usable), identifying gaps in knowledge/policy/information required to evaluate existing infrastructure for re-use, and proposing key actions that could be pursued to further the assessment of existing infrastructure re-use for CCS.

Infrastructure, reuse, re-purpose, oil and gas, pi↗
DOE OSTI2022

Leveraging SETS resilience capabilities for safe-to-fail infrastructure under climate change

As the rehabilitation of infrastructure is outpaced by changes in the profile, frequency, and intensity of extreme weather events, infrastructure’s service disruptions and failures become increasingly likely. Safe-to-fail approaches for infrastructure planning and design improve the capacity of cities to adapt for uncertain climate futures by identifying social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS) capabilities to prepare for potential failure scenarios. In this work, we argue for transforming infrastructure planning and design to effectively utilize safe-to-fail approaches by navigating the opportunities and trade-offs of SETS resilience capabilities. From a technological vantage point, traditional infrastructure planning approaches account for social and ecological domains as external design conditions rather than embedded system characteristics. Safe-to-fail approaches directly challenge the isolation of the technological domain by necessitating a recognition that SETS domains are interconnected and interdependent in infrastructure systems, as such risks and system capabilities for resilience must be managed cohesively.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗