Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “usage model”

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.

677 records · Page 38
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html 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 The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. 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 [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html 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 The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. 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 [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2023

WHONDRS River Corridor Sediment and Water Geochemistry and In Situ Sensor Data from Machine-Learning-Informed Sites across the Contiguous United States (v6)

This dataset supports a broader study examining hyporheic zone respiration rates to improve predictive models at a contiguous United States (CONUS) scale. The CONUS-Scale Model-Sample Study (CM) was designed following ICON (integrated, coordinated, open, and networked) principles to facilitate a model-experiment (ModEx) iteration approach, leveraging crowdsourced sampling across the CONUS. New machine learning models were created every month to guide sampling locations. Data from the resulting samples were used to test and rebuild the machine learning models for the next round of sampling guidance. Sampling began in April 2022 and ended in October 2023. In addition to the widely distributed CONUS sites, a more spatially focused sampling occurred in the Yakima River Basin, WA in summer 2022. Data from this more spatially intensive sampling occurred under the label “Second Spatial Study (SSS)” and were also included in the machine learning models. Other data types collected from SSS that were not part of CM were published in a separate data package (https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1969566). This data package was originally published in February 2023. It was updated in June 2023 (v2; new and modified files); December 2023 (v3; new and modified files); June 2024 (v4; new and modified files); April 2024 (v5; new and modified files); and September 2025 (v6; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of two folders of field photos and videos, one folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data and one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) readme; (5) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (6) field protocols; (7) a subfolder with sample data; and (8) a subfolder with sensor data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) surface water and sediment dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) surface water and sediment total nitrogen data and averages; (3) surface water major cations and anions and averages; (4) sediment grain size data; (5) sediment iron (II) data and averages; (6) wet sediment mass, dry sediment mass, water mass, and wet sediment volume in incubation and sediment ICR vials; (7) sediment incubation respiration rate data and averages; (8) normalized respiration rate data and averages; (9) methods codes; (10) sediment specific surface area; (11) sediment percent carbon and nitrogen; (12) sediment gravimetric moisture and averages; (15) sediment X-ray diffraction (XRD) data; (16) sediment adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and averages; (17) a subfolder with sediment incubation respiration data, scripts, and plots; (18) surface water and sediment FTICR methods; and (19) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains five subfolders, one containing the sediment .xml data files, one containing the water .xml files, one containing the sediment CoreMS output files, one containing the water CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS).The sensor data subfolder contains (1) a subfolder with miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature data and plots; (2) miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature summary data; and (3) miniDOT installation methods. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .d, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mov, or .mp4. CORRECTION: Carbon and nitrogen content are reported as percentages. The current column headers "01395_C_percent_per_mg" and "01397_N_percent_per_mg" are incorrect. These should read "01395_C_percent" and "01397_N_percent" and will be corrected in the next version of this data package. We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cowiche Canyon Conservatory, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Scientific Research Permit #210901), and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where the samples labeled “SSS” were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview. WHONDRS consortium members were asked to provide any acknowledgments for the collection of samples labeled “CM” and the following is a list of acknowledgments that were submitted with their corresponding Site IDs: (MART) Research activities were conducted in part on the Wind River Experimental Forest within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest; (MP- 100379) Philadelphia is part of Lenapehoking, the ancestral homelands of the Lenape peoples; (MP-102398) Land surveyed is the ancestral homelands of the Nookhose'iinenno (Arapaho), Tsis tsis'tas (Cheyenne), and Nuuchu (Ute); (MP-100749 and MP- 100747) Georgia Coastal Ecosystem LTER, OCE-1832178; (SP-70 and SP-72) Eastern Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock; (MP- 102944) Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. On the traditional lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Rhonde, and the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribe; (MP- 100607) Holiday Creek is located on the traditional territory of the Monacan Indian Nation; (SP-45) Lafayette Blue Springs State Park; (MP-102420) NSF DEB-2016749; (MP-100019) New Hampshire Agriculture Experiment Station; (SP-35) Rayonier (land owner; https://www.rayonier.com/); (MP- 101276) US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research, Subsurface Biogeochemical Research, Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 103224) Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 101584) Traditional lands of the Oceti Sakowin (Dakota, Lakota, Nakoda) and Anishinaabe Peoples.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Platform for Remote Deployment and Training for Enhanced Building Operation Practices (Building Re-Tuning and On-going Commissioning)

While a building’s energy usage is driven largely by its design and use, building operator behavior has a strong influence on its energy consumption. This project developed and piloted a specific, data-driven coaching methodology to help operators understand how they can adjust operations and/or affect no/low-cost repairs or upgrades to their specific building HVAC systems to reduce energy consumption. Named BuildingCoach, the operational optimization method used is based on the Building Re-tuning approach developed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. A building operations analytics market has matured over the past decade, though its potential to affect energy-saving changes has not been fully realized. Training operators to understand the methods for operational optimization with the explicit approach of using building-system performance data is hypothesized to create a more effective, longer lasting result in building energy efficiency, and this strategy is the fundamental premise of this project. With the support of an Industry Advisory Board, the project succeeded in developing materials and recruiting for and delivering three pilot cohorts. Deliverables included twenty-two self-paced training modules (accessed via a Learning Management System) and a web-based platform that includes access to real-time building system data and a repository for building system documentation. The project set out to have 100 participants from 50 buildings in three pilot cohorts. In the end, there were 28 participants from 17 buildings, i.e., a significant shortfall. The first two pilot cohorts had only two buildings in each, and this was partially due to difficulties in deploying the Building Operator Coaching Solution (“the BOCS”), which is technology that extracts the data from the controls network and presents it as prescribed for coaching. In the third cohort, the project team deployed the BOCS successfully to 13 buildings, the methodology was piloted as intended, and numerous opportunities for optimization were identified. The BuildingCoach business plan charts a path to an economically sustainable effort. However, even with a licensing model captured in the final version of the business plan, the scalability is still limited to keeping less than 1,000 buildings affected by 2033. Even so, there are unexplored paths to greater scalability that are being considered. CUNY BPL is working to perpetuate and grow the use of BuildingCoach. As of this writing, about twenty buildings have either been connected or will be connected with operators coached / to be coached in the NYC municipal portfolio, twelve buildings across four campuses in NY State will use BuildingCoach, a NY upstate county wishes for six or seven buildings to participate with the support of funding from NYSERDA, and others have also expressed interest. In the decades to come, there will be an increasing percentage of large and mid-sized buildings that incorporate automated system optimization (ASO), and the building operators’ role will shift to spend more time on maintenance and monitoring. Meanwhile, programs such as BuildingCoach will play a critical role in optimizing operations. And, regardless of the emergence of ASO, operators will still need to understand how their systems operate so that they can monitor them properly. Within that context, BuildingCoach is an important step towards operators’ understanding of efficient building system operations.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

Leaving in the lead: Priorities for perovskite photovoltaics

The need for moving electricity generation to a sustainable model requires the development of low cost ubiquitous photovoltaics (PVs) to harvest the planet’s primary energy source, the Sun. Building upon the successes of Si-based and CdTe-based PV technologies, PVs with lower-embodied energy and requiring lower carbon dioxide equivalent to produce will be required to meet long-term sustainability goals. In particular, thin-film technologies, such as high-efficiency metal halide perovskite (MHP) PV modules, provide avenues to reduced embodied energy, lower energy payback times, and enabling energy-dense tandems [H. M. Wikoff et al., Joule 6(7), 1710–1725 (2022) and V. Fthenakis, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 13(9), 2746–2750 (2009)]. The ability to improve efficiency and lower energy payback time of next generation thin-film PV modules is a critical foundation for green H2 and electrification more broadly. In this regard, Pb-based MHP-PVs have separated themselves as a result of the high-efficiencies that can be realized across a range of electronic gaps. Questions regarding Pb-based MHP-PVs that are often asked, as the challenges of efficiency and reliability are met, revolve around the “problem” of the Pb content. Specifically, “does Pb toxicity preclude MHP-PV modules from being deployed at the TW scale?” To provide this sense of scale, in 2021, the United States burned 10.5 quads of coal, with 90% of that used for electricity generation. Given the energy content of coal of 29 MJ/kg and a residual lead content in that coal of 30 mg/kg, electricity generation from coal resulted in more lead emitted into the atmosphere than what would be required to produce over 2 TW of MHP-PV name plate capacity (assuming a 20% module efficiency and an ∼700 nm active layer). This amounts to more PV power than has been deployed across all PV technologies and geographies to date. This only includes US coal consumption; the rest of the world would be much larger. This example illustrates the scale of the material usage relative to the energy production. Imagine a power-generation technology that offsets these Pb emissions from coal and essentially sequesters this Pb content between two sheets of impermeable glass. Why should we let Pb’s history of misuse prevent it from being included in next generation PV modules that can enable a sustainable energy future?

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Spatial Study 2022: Surface Water Samples, Cotton Strip Degradation, and Hydrologic Sensor Data across the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of spatial variability in sediment respiration rates in the Yakima River Basin. The dataset provides data and photos generated from sample collection during the same one-week period at 48 sites within multiple rivers throughout the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA. The contents include surface water geochemistry data; river substrate grain size photos; stream depth data; manual chamber open channel respiration data; and field metadata (including qualitative information on instream and river corridor characteristics). Grain size photos can be used to improve estimates of channel substrate D50 data. The dataset also includes tensile strength and photos from cotton strip field degradation experiments; five-week sensor time series temperature, dissolved oxygen, pressure, pH, specific conductance, chlorophyll A, and turbidity data; plots of the sensor data; and R scripts used to generate the plots. Samples collected during this study were labeled as “Second Spatial Study” or “SSS.” A subset of data from the SSS samples were published in the contiguous United States (CONUS)-Scale Model-Sample (CM) study data package available at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1923689 that presents data from across the CONUS. SSS data published in the CM data package were not included in this data package. They include dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC), total nitrogen (TN), grain size, aerobic sediment respiration, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature. Parent IDs and Site IDs are consistent between the SSS and CM data packages, and they can be mapped directly so data across packages can be used together. Additionally, sensor data from a similar 2021 spatial study can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1892052 and 2021 sample data can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1898914. The 2021 spatial study had some sites in common with this 2022 spatial study. This dataset is comprised of three photo folders and one main data folder with six subfolders. The photo folders contain photographs and videos of cotton strip retrieval and sediment quadrats. The main data folder consists of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) total suspended solids (TSS) data and cotton strip tensile strength data and averages; (5) field protocol; (6) readme; (7) methods codes; (8) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (9) sensor installation methods summary; (10) stream depth and averages; and (11) Ultrameter data and averages. The Sonar subfolder consists of Sonar time-series depth data and a processing script. The BarotrollAtm, DepthHOBO, MantaRiver, miniDOT, and miniDOTManualChamber subfolders contain time-series data, plots, and summary files. All files are .csv, .pdf, .txt, .R, .Rmd, .jpg, .jpeg, .AVI, .mp4, or .mov. The data package was originally published in April 2023. It was updated in August 2023 (v2; modified files) and September 2024 (v3; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for details. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Surrogate-assisted optimization under uncertainty for design for remanufacturing considering material price volatility

Remanufacturing is a well-established end-of-life (EOL) strategy that promises significant savings in energy and carbon emissions. However, the current design practices are not remanufacturing-inclusive, i.e., the majority of products are designed for a single life cycle. As a result, potential products that can sustain multiple life cycles are deprived of additional benefits of being designed for remanufacturing, such as reduced material usage, lower cost, and improved environmental impact. Moreover, the uncertainty in design, material selection, and economics are not considered to produce remanufacturable designs. Accordingly, this research proposes a design for remanufacturing (DfRem) framework that accounts for design uncertainty and material price volatility. The framework systematically explores the design space, performs design optimization under uncertainty, followed by topology optimization to provide additional mass savings, and finally, a price volatility analysis for plausible design material choices. The candidate designs are evaluated based on their design mass, material price volatility, failure mode characteristics, carbon footprint, and embodied energy impacts. The proposed framework's utility is demonstrated via the use of an engine cylinder head case study subjected to thermo-mechanical loads along with fatigue and wear failure. Considering grey cast iron and aluminum alloy as the design material choices, it was found that the cast iron design reduced the initial design mass by 6% as opposed to a 5% decrease for aluminum. On the other hand, about 8% area of the cast iron design failed due to fatigue, compared to 3% for aluminum. Here, we further observed that although the aluminum design provided better mechanical performance than the cast iron design, this material was more expensive and volatile in price.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

nf-core/proteinfamilies: a scalable pipeline for the generation of protein families

The growth of metagenomics-derived amino acid sequence data has transformed our understanding of protein function, microbial diversity, and evolutionary relationships. However, the vast majority of these proteins remain functionally uncharacterized. Grouping the millions of such uncharacterized sequences with the few experimentally characterized ones allows the transfer of annotations, while the inspection of conserved residues with multiple sequence alignments can provide clues to function, even in the absence of existing functional information. To address the challenges associated with this data surge and the need to group sequences, we present a scalable, open-source, parametrizable Nextflow pipeline (nf-core/proteinfamilies) that generates nascent protein families or assigns new proteins to existing families. The computational benchmarks demonstrated that resource usage scales approximately linearly with input size, and the biological benchmarks showed that the generated protein families closely resemble manually curated families in widely used databases.

Nextflow↗
DOE OSTI2024

Fluidized-Bed Gasification of Coal-Biomass-Plastics for Hydrogen Production

Coal is one of the most abundant fossil energy resources in the United States and in the world. The recoverable reserves in the United States are estimated to be about 252 billion tons – more than 350 years of supply at current rates of usage. However, the share of coal in total primary energy consumption in the US has been declining over the years. The decline of coal is mainly attributed to cheap natural gas and precipitous declines in the cost of electricity production from renewable technologies such as wind and solar. Coal can potentially be used if it is coupled with carbon-neutral feedstock such as biomass-agricultural residues, forest biomass, and forest residues. Co-gasification of coal and biomass can become a negative carbon emission technology if the carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is captured and sequestered. Although the biomass gasification process has a lot of similarities to coal gasification, the large-scale adaptation of power production sourced from biomass has not come to fruition. The main reason is that the power production from biomass is still expensive when compared with natural gas or coal power technologies. To address the feedstock cost, one approach is to use low-cost feedstocks, such as municipal solid wastes (MSW) or plastics, for gasification. Gasification involves the partial oxidation of coal and/or biomass feedstocks to produce a combustible fuel called synthesis gas (syngas) which is composed of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H 2 ), CO 2 , methane (CH 4 ), nitrogen (N 2 ), water (H 2 O), and other compounds that might be considered as contaminants. Raw syngas from gasification must go through multiple steps to produce high-purity hydrogen. The specific steps depend upon the quality (gas composition, contaminants, and their concentration) and condition (pressure and temperature) of syngas. The long-term goal of the project was to utilize coal and plastics together with biomass to produce energy and fuels using a gasification platform while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The main objective of this research was to examine gasification performance in a laboratory-scale fluidized-bed gasifier for hydrogen production. The specific objectives of the research were to: (i) study coal-plastic-biomass mixture flowability for consistent feeding in the gasifier; (ii) understand the gasification behavior of the mixture in steam and oxygen environments; (iii) perform thermal property characterization of ash and slag from the mixture feedstock and refractory-ash interface of the mixture under gasification conditions; and (iv) develop process models to determine the technology needed for syngas cleanup and contaminants. The study found that there was no apparent segregation when biomass, coal, and waste plastics were mixed together during feeding. Although there were differences in hydrogen production when individual feedstock were fed, the hydrogen concentration remained almost constant with various blends. Therefore, blending waste plastics with biomass and coal, which are all abundant, is a better approach for energy production. Results of the techno-economic analysis suggested that integration of advanced gasification (GTI’s R-GAS™) and syngas cleanup and conditioning technologies (RTI’s WDP and AFWGS) for clean hydrogen production resulted in substantial benefits, including significant capital cost and operating cost reductions. Advanced technologies resulted in 16% reduction in the hydrogen production cost (COH) from 2.94 $\$$/kg to 2.47 $\$$/g, with further scope for optimization and cost reduction. These advanced technologies also result in lower emissions, and improved energy efficiency.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Transactive Energy Network Template Metamodel

While transactive energy, which is defined as an allocation of electricity based on dynamically discovered values or prices, has been extensively studied, its uptake and use has been slow. This report describes a tool, the transactive network template, which should hasten the creation and uptake of transactive energy networks. Some basic principles of transactive energy are familiar from existing wholesale electricity markets. Locational prices are calculated today for zones within bulk electric transmission systems. Locational prices differ while accounting for the locational costs of electricity generation and the losses and constraints incurred when electricity is transmitted from generators and distributed to consumers. A transactive energy network might include these transmission zones. However, current research strives to apply transactive energy also in electricity distribution circuits, buildings, and even for individual generating and consuming devices. At the same time, researchers explore how to apply transactive energy in real time during increasingly shorter time intervals. Automated computational agents become necessary as transactive energy becomes applied to smaller circuit zones and at faster dynamic timescales. A transactive energy network is an example of a multi-agent system. Each zone in the network is represented by its transactive agent, which makes decisions for and acts on behalf of a business entity that is responsible for and manages one of the circuit regions. A transactive energy network is also an example of a decentralized, distributed control system. Control decisions and responsibilities are distributed among the network’s transactive agents. The transactive agents are independent; that is, there typically is no centralized authority or oversight function. Instead, transactive agents exchange transactive signals and thereby negotiate the prices and quantities of electricity that they will exchange. Initially, the circuit regions and responsibilities of transactive agents appear to be very dissimilar. Each circuit region may comprise transmission, distribution, or building-level circuits. Each has a unique position and electrical connectivity within the transactive energy network. Each possesses unique assets that either generate or consume electricity, and these (e.g., renewable energy generator, diesel generator, aggregate utility load, building load, space conditioning, refrigerator, etc.) may further differ in their price flexibility and in their strategies for responding to dynamic electricity prices. Given such diversity, an implementer’s first inclination might be to start from scratch to define all these devices and to engineer their seemingly unique interactions. Given that each implementer’s perspective may be narrow within a transactive energy network, it is unlikely that uniquely engineered systems would interact well. This is where the transactive network template is applicable. The transactive network template is a metamodel that has been developed to guide implementers as they configure their own transactive agent within a network of such agents. The object-oriented design of the transactive network template provides basic code object types that may be used and extended by implementers to represent each of the assets in their circuit region. These objects further facilitate the transactive agent’s necessary computations, which are divided among responsibilities to schedule power usage, balance electric supply and demand, and coordinate the exchange of electricity with the other transactive agents. This report addresses the conceptual transactive network template design. Implementers are directed to more formal design documents and reference implementations. A Python™-based1 reference implementation of the transactive network template has been coded, and three implementations have been configured to represent a national laboratory and two university campuses. Version 2 of the transactive node template generalizes the market class and its methods to facilitate multiple, and more diverse market coordination mechanisms than were facilitated by and demonstrated using Version 1. Version 3 includes new Appendix B, which addresses the designs of methods that would make dynamic prices track approved electricity rates. In the future, the author wishes to make the transactive network template more generally applicable to networks that require more accurate power flow. Development of the transactive network template is jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the DOE Office of Electricity. In late 2015, one of the first projects to be funded by the DOE Grid Laboratory Modernization Laboratory Consortium was the Clean Energy and Transactive Campus project, led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. DOE funds were matched by an investment by the Washington Department of Commerce through its Clean Energy Fund. The transactive network template was developed to guide the implementation of transactive energy networks within this project’s scope.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Commissioning of the Mu2e tracker DAQ, planning for the Vertical Slice Test and pre-pattern recognition studies

The primary objective of the Mu2e experiment at Fermilab is to search for the neutrino-less coherent $\mu \rightarrow e$ conversion in the field of an aluminum nucleus ($\mu^- \text{Al} \rightarrow e^- \text{Al}$). The signature of this process is a monochromatic Conversion Electron (CE) with an energy of approximately 104.97 MeV \cite{bartoszek2015mu2e}. Within the Standard Model (SM), the branching ratio for this process, including neutrino masses and oscillation, is expected to be less than $\mathcal{O}(10^{-50})$. This value is far beyond current experimental capabilities. However, models of physics beyond the SM predict much higher relative rates, approaching an observable level. The SINDRUM II experiment set an upper limit on muon conversion at $7 \times 10^{-13}$ (90\% CL) on Au target \cite{SINDRUMII:2006dvw}, and the Mu2e collaboration aims to improve this limit by four orders of magnitude. Observing this process would provide a clear evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model. A brief discussion of the theoretical and experimental aspects is provided in Chapter \ref{intr}. Mu2e adopts a sophisticated experimental setup to achieve its goals, further described in Chapter \ref{mu2echapter}. The central part of the Mu2e detector is the tracker, that consists of 18 tracking stations. The tracker must provide excellent momentum resolution, approximately 1 MeV/c, to distinguish the monochromatic CE signal from the background. To minimize the energy losses, a straw tube tracker will be used \cite{bobbb}. Chapter \ref{chaptertrk} provides an overview of the straw tracker design and its working principles. This Thesis presents a comprehensive study of the Mu2e tracker, covering complementary aspects from initial commissioning to optimization and first steps of the calibration processes. My work at Fermilab has been focused on the complete Data Acquisition (DAQ) testing from both hardware and software perspectives. I was involved in the commissioning of the Mu2e DAQ system and the Vertical Slice Test (VST) of the tracker. The VST encompasses the entire testing chain, from the straws to the readout, and to processed data on disk. I was also focused on the offline analysis, especially on pre-pattern recognition studies, to explore the best methods for identifying $\delta$-electrons during the data taking. Chapter \ref{commissioning} details the commissioning of the tracker DAQ system, emphasizing the importance of understanding of the readout process before the data acquisition. This includes validating the readout logic and firmware through Monte Carlo simulations to confirm functionality and buffering, monitoring the quality of the data from the tracker preamplifiers and front-end electronics, and assessing overall DAQ performance to ensure reliability during future calibration and data-taking. Chapter \ref{planning} discusses the initial steps towards the tracker calibration. The ultimate goal is to perform a time calibration of the first assembled station of the tracker using cosmic muons, aiming for a longitudinal hit position resolution better than 4 cm. This involves determining the signal propagation times and channel-to-channel delays. I performed a Monte Carlo study to determine the impact of the station orientation on the quality of the calibration, in particular on the cosmic track reconstruction, focusing on potential biases that could arise. These studies provide essential insights into the operation, optimization, and calibration of the Mu2e tracker system. Given the high data volume expected during Mu2e operations, estimated at approximately 7 PBytes per year, optimizing memory usage and minimizing CPU consumption are critical. A significant challenge lies in effectively flagging $\delta$-electron hits, which are the primary source of hits in the tracker, without compromising the efficiency of CE hit detection and track reconstruction. A detailed study of pre-pattern recognition and a thorough comparison of two $\delta$-electron flagging algorithms is provided in Chapter \ref{delta}. In Chapter \ref{conclusions}, the findings are concisely summarized, offering a comprehensive synthesis of the research and emphasizing the key insights derived from this study.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗