Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Baseline estimation”

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 73 records · Page 4

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Baseline vs. DER Scenario

Projections and associated uncertainty estimates are generated for a variety of user-selectable EV charging sessions, electricity tariffs, subsidy levels, revenue schemes, charging station configurations, and on-site solar and/or storage options. The outputs are presented in CHIP's web portal browser in the form of easily interpretable graphics (interactive graphs and bar charts) that facilitate convenient comparison among different scenarios to aid decision-making. The user should bring assumptions for modeling on simulation planning horizon, number of EV charging sessions per year, electricity costs (energy and demand charge rates; flat versus time-of-use rate), site capital costs (equipment for EV chargers and transformer), solar PV, and battery energy storage (kW).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Measuring the neutrino-oxygen neutral current quasielastic cross section using the accelerator neutrino neutron interaction experiment

The Accelerator Neutrino Neutron Interaction Experiment (ANNIE) is a 26-ton gadolinium-doped water Cherenkov detector located on-axis to Fermilab’s Booster Neutrino Beam (BNB). ANNIE is uniquely positioned to perform high-statistics measurements of neutrino-nucleus interactions in water, benefiting from a large neutrino flux due to a short (100-meter) baseline. A central focus of ANNIE’s physics program is the measurement of both charged current (CC) and neutral current (NC) cross sections on water, including neutral current quasielastic (NCQE) and CC-inclusive channels. The NCQE measurement is particularly critical for constraining uncertainties in rare-event searches such as the Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background (DSNB), where atmospheric $\nu$NCQE interactions constitute a significant and poorly constrained background. This dissertation presents a measurement of the flux-averaged neutrino-oxygen neutral current quasielastic ($\nu$NCQE) cross section using $2.573 \times 10^{20}$~POT of BNB exposure from the 2022 and 2023 beam years. The $\nu$NCQE interaction is identified through the primary $\gamma$-rays produced by nuclear de-excitation of the residual $^{15}$N$^*$ or $^{15}$O$^*$ nucleus following nucleon knockout from $^{16}$O. A dedicated Monte Carlo (MC) re-tuning campaign was conducted using an americium-beryllium (AmBe) calibration source, Michel electrons from stopped muons, and throughgoing dirt muons originating upstream of the detector. This multi-sample approach provided a wide-ranging $\mathcal{O}(\text{MeV})$--$\mathcal{O}(\text{GeV})$ dataset for tuning the simulated detector response, which was subsequently validated against AmBe neutron and Michel electron data for use in the $\nu$NCQE analysis. A dedicated laser calibration campaign was carried out to reduce timing uncertainties across the PMT system, enabling reconstruction of the BNB bunch substructure with sufficient resolution to serve as a background rejection tool. By selecting events in-time with individual neutrino bunches, beam-correlated $\nu$NCQE events are separated from diffuse and accelerator-induced backgrounds, notably skyshine neutrons and externally-originating events, that would otherwise dominate traditional charge-based selections within a small-scale, surface-level, short-baseline detector. A data-driven estimation of the skyshine neutron and external background rates was performed and incorporated into the systematic uncertainty budget. The flux-averaged $\nu$NCQE cross section on oxygen is measured to be $1.57 \pm 0.06\,(\text{stat.})$ $^{+0.91}_{-0.67}\,(\text{syst.})$ $\times 10^{-38}\ \text{cm}^{2}$. A full systematic budget is constructed by propagating uncertainties in the secondary hadronic interaction modeling, background cross section normalizations, detector response, neutrino flux, and the primary $\gamma$-ray emission probabilities from oxygen nuclear de-excitation. An idealized de-excitation model, constructed from existing measurements in the literature is developed to benchmark the predictions of the \textsc{GENIE} event generator. A comparison reveals that \textsc{GENIE} systematically overpredicts the primary $\gamma$-ray emission probability from oxygen de-excitation by a factor of $1.49\times$ for $E_\gamma > 6$~MeV and $3.07\times$ in the $3$--$6$~MeV band. This comparison motivates the dominant systematic uncertainty in this analysis, where a conservative uncertainty of $^{+39.9\%}_{-0\%}$ on the primary $\gamma$-ray signal prediction is assigned. The ANNIE result is consistent with and complementary to existing flux-averaged $\nu$NCQE cross section measurements from T2K and Super-Kamiokande, providing an independent measurement with a different detector, neutrino beam, and analysis methodology. Looking ahead, an upgrade to the ANNIE DAQ infrastructure enabling continuous extended readout will allow a complementary $\nu$NCQE neutron multiplicity measurement, directly relevant to constraining the NCQE background in DSNB searches, competitive with the recent T2K measurement at SK-Gd. The planned Super-SANDI upgrade, deploying a large Water-based Liquid Scintillator (WbLS) volume, will further extend ANNIE's reach to hadronic final states and exclusive NC channels, and enable joint measurements with liquid argon detectors sharing the BNB beamline ahead of DUNE and Hyper-Kamiokande.

Doran, Steven [Iowa State U.]↗

Challenges of COVID-19 Case Forecasting in the US, 2020–2021

During the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasting COVID-19 trends to support planning and response was a priority for scientists and decision makers alike. In the United States, COVID-19 forecasting was coordinated by a large group of universities, companies, and government entities led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub ( https://covid19forecasthub.org ). We evaluated approximately 9.7 million forecasts of weekly state-level COVID-19 cases for predictions 1–4 weeks into the future submitted by 24 teams from August 2020 to December 2021. We assessed coverage of central prediction intervals and weighted interval scores (WIS), adjusting for missing forecasts relative to a baseline forecast, and used a Gaussian generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to evaluate differences in skill across epidemic phases that were defined by the effective reproduction number. Overall, we found high variation in skill across individual models, with ensemble-based forecasts outperforming other approaches. Forecast skill relative to the baseline was generally higher for larger jurisdictions (e.g., states compared to counties). Over time, forecasts generally performed worst in periods of rapid changes in reported cases (either in increasing or decreasing epidemic phases) with 95% prediction interval coverage dropping below 50% during the growth phases of the winter 2020, Delta, and Omicron waves. Ideally, case forecasts could serve as a leading indicator of changes in transmission dynamics. However, while most COVID-19 case forecasts outperformed a naïve baseline model, even the most accurate case forecasts were unreliable in key phases. Further research could improve forecasts of leading indicators, like COVID-19 cases, by leveraging additional real-time data, addressing performance across phases, improving the characterization of forecast confidence, and ensuring that forecasts were coherent across spatial scales. In the meantime, it is critical for forecast users to appreciate current limitations and use a broad set of indicators to inform pandemic-related decision making.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗