Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Operations coordination plan”

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.

85 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

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

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Feasibility and strategic implications of deploying nuclear power reactors in Africa

This report assesses the feasibility and strategic implications of deploying nuclear power reactors, including large-scale plants, advanced small modular reactors (SMRs), and microreactors, in African countries. Case studies focus on South Africa, Egypt, Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria, examining nuclear energy’s role in Africa’s rapidly evolving energy landscape, marked by fast-growing demand, significant electricity access gaps, increasing renewable penetration, and strong policy commitments to industrialization and energy security. Several U.S. reactor technologies and designs are considered based on their development status and readiness for deployment. The analysis finds that nuclear power can provide reliable, clean baseload and flexible generation, as well as high-temperature process heat for desalination, hydrogen production, and industrial applications. However, suitability is highly country-specific, depending on grid size and stability, transmission capacity, cooling water availability, regulatory readiness, and fuel supply chains. Near-term deployment opportunities are strongest for light-water reactors (such as NuScale, BWRX-300, AP300, and SMR-300) that use low-enriched uranium and build on proven technology. More advanced concepts, including gas-cooled, sodium-cooled, molten-salt cooled reactors, and microreactors, will likely be relevant for African deployment in the 2030s or later, contingent on demonstration projects, high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel availability, and mature international licensing frameworks. Economic analysis shows that SMRs are capital-intensive, with projected overnight costs for 300 MWe units in 2025 ranging from approximately 1.4 to 2.6 billion USD per module. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is highly sensitive to the weighted average cost of capital (WACC). Given typically higher financing costs and utility balance-sheet weaknesses in many African countries, bankable project structures will require sovereign guarantees, robust offtake arrangements, and layered financing from export credit agencies, development finance institutions, and vendor nations. Comparisons with recent large nuclear projects in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Egypt underscore the central role of state-backed loans, long tenors, and concessional terms. Country case studies illustrate a spectrum of readiness and opportunity. South Africa operates two 920 MWe pressurized light water reactors (totaling 1,840 MWe) at Koeberg and has the most mature regulatory and industrial base, positioning it as a prime candidate for both large reactors and SMRs to replace coal, support desalination, and anchor industrial hubs. Egypt is constructing four VVER-1200 units at El Dabaa with strong state leadership and could later complement this fleet with SMRs for coastal and industrial applications. Kenya and Ghana are advancing through IAEA Milestones with growing institutional capacity and clear interest in SMRs that match their smaller grids and industrialization plans. Nigeria has the largest demand potential but faces acute constraints in grid reliability, project bankability, and regulatory capacity; targeted deployments of large reactors and SMRs near coastal or industrial sites could have high impact if accompanied by major grid upgrades and institutional reforms. The report identifies cross-cutting challenges such as financing, political continuity, public acceptance, nonproliferation and security, waste and back-end management, regulatory capacity, grid adequacy, and long deployment timelines for first-of-a-kind designs, and ANL/NSE-26/3 ii proposes broad directions for resolution. These include stronger multifaceted financing for nuclear, long-term national energy strategies that transcend electoral cycles, proactive stakeholder engagement, strengthened regional and national regulators, and systematic workforce development through centers of excellence and expanded training. The United States should develop partnerships with African countries and offer end-to-end nuclear package similar to those used effectively by competitors: coordinated project development, state-backed financing, long-term fuel services, and durable in-country support through regional offices and sustained workforce/regulatory training. With timely planning, sustained political commitment, and appropriate financing and institutional support, nuclear energy, both large reactors and advanced SMRs, can become a meaningful, though not dominant, pillar of Africa’s future power mix, enhancing energy security, enabling industrial growth, and supporting climate goals.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

The Myth of Fungible FTE: A Quantitative Assessment of Matrixed Resource Allocation

Matrix organizations allow scientific facilities to share specialized personnel across projects, operations, maintenance, and strategic initiatives. Nominal staffing allocations, however, may not capture the schedule consequences of fragmented individual commitments, limited access to specialist groups, and intermittent availability of key decision makers. We developed a stochas- tic, daily-time-step simulation of a hypothetical medium-sized accelerator-facility project com- prising sequential phases and parallel tasks. Each task requires role-specific work measured in FTE-days. Ordinary personnel may be unavailable because they contribute concurrently to other institutional activities, while designated key roles have independently specified daily un- availability probabilities. An organization-wide priority factor scales the number of people from each functional group who can effectively contribute to the project. It is interpreted as a composite proxy for project access and workforce fragmentation across competing commit- ments. We examined project completion time as a function of this factor and Project Lead unavailability using 100 Monte Carlo runs per condition. Increasing priority factor from 0.1 to 1.0 reduced median completion time from 1708.5 days (interquartile range 1681.5–1735.25) to 390 days (interquartile range 379–399). At priority factor = 0.1, increasing Project Lead unavailability from 0.5 to 0.9 increased median completion time from 1713.5 days (interquartile range 1691–1733.25) to 4,417 days (interquartile range 4271.75–4550.5). The model quantifies the commonly expected sensitivity of project schedules to fragmented resource commitments and limited coordination availability. Within this model, the results also indicate a possible threshold regime in which small increases in workforce availability yield only modest sched- ule improvements until sufficient capacity becomes accessible, after which project performance improves sharply. With further validation and calibration, this quantitative framework could support resource-allocation decisions during initial project planning and subsequent schedule rebaselining.

Bai, Mei [SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (SL↗
DOE OSTI2024

Review of Technical Requirements for Inverter-Based Resources in Chile

This document compares the technical requirements in the grid code of Chile (NTSyCS) against the EirGrid (Ireland transmission system operator) and National Grid Electricity System Operator (NESO) grid codes and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 2800-2022 standard for conventional inverter technology at the transmission and subtransmission levels in the process of being adopted by system operators in the U.S. The document is intended to be a guide and reference for future updates of the NTSyCS, considering the local system requirements and present improvements in inverter-based resource (IBR) technology. In light of the findings of the aforementioned comparative review, this document proposes and describes the requirements for conventional IBRs that could be incorporated and updated into the Chilean grid code. The document is structured around the main grid challenges posed by the transition to an IBR-dominated grid and conventional IBRs capabilities to help address them. This document does not provide guidance on how this specification should be implemented (e.g., through a mandate or market solution).

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Digital Assurance for Grid Reliability in the Era of Large Load Growth

The rapid expansion of large electric loads is reshaping the operational and regulatory landscape of the U.S. electric grid. These facilities are reaching new scales of expansion, now exceeding a gigawatt per site, and their highly sensitive, digitally driven behaviors introduce new reliability risks. Recent grid events, including large load losses following routine transmission disturbances, highlight the consequences of limited ride-through capability, inconsistent protection settings, inadequate modeling, and lack of behind-the-meter visibility. Parallels to earlier integration challenges of new grid technologies suggest that the grid’s existing processes, standards, and interconnection frameworks are no longer adequate for emerging large loads. This brief synthesizes lessons from the evolution of inverter-based resource regulation and applies them to large-load integration. It identifies critical gaps in modeling accuracy, interconnection processes, performance standards, and compliance mechanisms. Technical recommendations emphasize advanced monitoring, improved modeling, coordinated communication protocols, modernized substations, and structured behind-the-meter control schemes. Collectively, these measures provide a roadmap to maintain bulk power system reliability while enabling the continued growth of large, electrified digital infrastructure.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Reconstruction of the 4D beam matrix

The widely used transverse parameters characterizing particle beams are the Twiss parameters. These parameters can be measured experimentally but they do not fully characterize the beam since they do not account for possible correlations in particle distribution between two transverse coordinates. These correlations may occur due to uncompensated magnetic field at the cathode or misalignment of focusing quadrupoles in the transport beamline. We test a novel diagnostic for diagnosing full 4D beam matrix which may be used to identify such imperfections. The diagnostic is based on transporting the beam through the beamline which includes a quadrupole and a skew quadrupole magnets and measuring the resulting 2D beam distribution at the screen downstream. Such a measurement can be viewed as measuring a 2D projection of the 4D distribution. Different settings of the quads provide measurements of different slices of the phase space. The reconstruction of the original beam matrix from a number of measurements is done using machine learning algorithm, which provides a fast and reliable way of reconstruction for an arbitrary configuration of the scanning beamline. In August 2024, we set up the diagnostic beamline to perform a quadrupole scan of the beam. The setup includes a skew quadrupole, a regular quadrupole, and a screen. The images on the screen were post-processed to remove experimental artifacts and enhance contrast by eliminating background noise outside the core of the distribution=. The rms parameters of the distribution were then calculated and used as inputs for the reconstruction algorithm. This algorithm attempts to determine the initial beam matrix that produces expected images on the screen closely matching the observed images across all quadrupole settings. The algorithm found a solution in which the expected rms parameters closely align with the observations. Validation of the results is planned for FY25.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
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 OSTI2025

Site and endmember spectra of terrestrial vegetation and soils for the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study, June-July 2025

This dataset provides site and endmember spectra collected during the 2025 Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign. The site spectra were collected to help validate airborne hyperspectral data acquired by the National Ecological Observatory Network's aerial observation platform (NEON AOP). Endmember spectra were collected to augment existing spectral libraries with additional samples of bare surfaces and non-photosynthetic vegetation. All measurements were acquired with an Analytical Spectral Devices (ASD) FieldSpec4 Hi-Res NG (Next Generation) spectroradiometer, which records radiance at 1nm (nanometer) intervals from the ultraviolet to the short-wave infrared (350-2500 nm). The dataset includes spectra measured at meadow sites where the CHESS team also collected vegetation samples for trait analyses. The site spectra were collected with the ASD FieldSpec4 palm grip attachment using an 8° field-of-view foreoptic. Site spectra are integrated measurements of the entire surface within the foreoptic’s field of view. For site-level spectra, the sun is the illumination source. A Spectralon panel mounted on a tripod was used for instrument optimization and white reference measurements for all site spectra. Site spectra were acquired within two hours of solar noon and within 48 hours of a NEON AOP overflight. Site spectra are labeled by date, sampling area, and site number according to the naming conventions of the CHESS campaign’s data management plan. The dataset also contains endmember spectra in the following categories: photosynthetic vegetation (PV), non-photosynthetic vegetation (NPV), bare (soil/rock), and flowers. Endmember measurements were acquired using either the contact probe or the leaf clip attachments of the ASD FieldSpec4. In these configurations, the bulb inside the spectrometer provides the light source for the measurements. The spectrometer was optimized and white reference measurements were recorded using the circular white pucks attached to the contact probe and leaf clip. Because they do not rely on solar illumination, contact probe and leaf clip measurements were collected during a broader time frame than the palm grip site spectra. Some endmembers were measured at CHESS meadow sites, while others were collected within the larger sampling area or in nearby locations (e.g. Gothic Townsite) with similar characteristics. Radiance, reflectance, and metadata files are split into three subfolders according to measurement type: proximal/palm grip (prx), contact probe (cp), and leaf clip (lc). Radiance spectra are provided in ASD file format (.asd file extension). All ASD files can be opened using the provided scripts. Metadata is provided in two formats: CSV file format (no geolocation) and GEOJSON file format (includes geolocation for each spectra). The dataset includes a set of pre-processed reflectance spectra as CSV files (yyyymmdd_rfl.csv). The python scripts and jupyter notebook used to calculate reflectance spectra from the ASD radiance data is included here and was previously published at: https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/2446. There is also a folder of JPEG photographs corresponding to selected spectra. We include a protocol document with detailed steps for ASD FieldSpec4 assembly and operations. This data additionally contains a file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) file. Geospatial information: Geospatial data for mapping measurement site locations are in the files CHESS_polygons_lai_UTM.geojson, CHESS_polygons_shrub_UTM.geojson, and CHESS_polygons_meadow_UTM.geojson in the companion geospatial package for the 2025 CHESS campaign, ‘CHESS 2025: Location data for field observations and sampling’ (Henderson et al., 2026). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgment: This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004) and was funded by EMIT Extended Mission Phase E Science.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2025

Controlled environment agriculture: An opportunity to strengthen interagency research collaboration in the US government

Challenges facing food production and agricultural systems are increasingly interconnected with economic, security, health, and equity issues, among others. Threats such as extreme weather, economic volatility, and shrinking water resources and arable land, influence our ability to maintain a safe and resilient food supply. One promising solution to these threats is controlled environment agriculture (CEA). In many cases, CEA can drastically reduce the amount of water and land used in crop production while increasing productivity. Operations may be established in nearly any environment and harvests can take place year-round, supporting food system resiliency and sustainability. CEA sits at the nexus of a number of disciplines and industries, making it well suited for transdisciplinary and multi-institutional research coordination. Herein, authors from multiple US government agencies present CEA as a case study in improving cross-agency research collaboration. The federal government houses a range of scientific expertise and research capabilities, positioning scientists to lead national and global efforts in transdisciplinary, interagency approaches to complex challenges. Navigating cross-agency collaboration can be a challenge, especially coordinating across different scientific disciplines, geographic locations, and funding mechanisms. To enhance multiagency efforts, collaborators could prioritize (i) organizing personnel and resources, (ii) enhancing existing multiagency collaborations, and (iii) focusing on further opportunities for coordination. Adopting these approaches could enable federal researchers to reinforce and advance academic and industry efforts to address current CEA challenges while solidifying the United States as a leader in this arena.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Securing the Modern Grid: Federal Investments, Digitization, and Supply Chain Strategy

Across the United States (U.S.) grid expansion and modernization is underway, paving the way for accelerated load growth and intelligent resource management. Digitization of the grid is supported by several state and federal programs, providing support for utilities installing advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), AI-powered analytics systems, battery energy storage systems (BESS), and distributed energy resource management systems (DERMS) to transform the grid from a one-way power delivery system into an intelligent, responsive network that will enable faster load growth and power expansion of data centers for advanced artificial intelligence (AI) applications. The digital transformation of America's grid presents opportunity for increased efficiency and resiliency but also introduces new digital risks that require careful management. Digital equipment often contains several vulnerabilities such as unencrypted communication protocols, and persistent remote access capabilities that could be exploited to manipulate device settings, coordinate service disruptions, or inject false data into grid operations. These digital risks become particularly important as the grid must rapidly scale to support AI-driven data centers, which the administration has identified as essential for maintaining U.S. technological leadership and economic competitiveness. These vulnerabilities are compounded by supply chain realities: Chinese manufacturers currently produce 70-90% of essential grid components including inverters, batteries, and control systems, with the U.S. lacking domestic manufacturing capacity for critical assets like extra-high voltage transformers. Recent federal legislation has established Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) restrictions to address these risks, requiring projects to achieve escalating thresholds of non-FEOC content to receive tax credits while utilities work to expand sourcing channels for their supply chains and strengthen security measures. These restrictions arrive precisely when utilities face unprecedented electricity demand growth driven by the rapid growth in data centers, creating a considerable challenge: rapidly expanding infrastructure while navigating complex compliance requirements while lacking viable alternatives for many critical components. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and its partners have developed practical approaches to help utilities navigate these intersecting challenges as they leverage federal investment to strengthen and grow the grid. These solutions include Cyber-Informed Engineering (CIE) principles that build resilience directly into systems, the Cirrus tool for secure cloud migration, and enhanced procurement guidance that embeds security requirements throughout equipment lifecycles. Federal initiatives, such as the Technical Assistance for Digital Assurance (TADA) project, provide direct support to utilities implementing these approaches while facilitating knowledge sharing across the industry. While these tools and frameworks cannot eliminate all risks inherent in foreign supply chain dependencies, they offer pragmatic pathways for strengthening security posture without sacrificing the deployment momentum essential to meeting surging electricity demand. Ultimately, securing America's digital energy infrastructure demands dedicated coordination across multiple fronts: building domestic supply chains, implementing robust digital assurance practices, and maintaining the aggressive modernization timeline necessary for reliability, resilience, and energy independence.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Value of Nuclear Energy to the Reliability of the North American Power System: Results for Western and Eastern Interconnections

This report documents the fulfillment of a milestone for the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program: completing a baseline study of regional impact of nuclear power plants and hydrogen production in maintaining grid services and power quality. Models have been comprehensively demonstrated for the Western Interconnection, or Western Electric Coordinating Council area, and in the Eastern Interconnection for scenarios representative of past extreme events (e.g., drought and heat waves). Understanding the impact on the reliability of the bulk electric system of any reduction in generation capacity from nuclear power, for any reason, is the motivation of this work. Factors that might lead to the premature or unplanned closure of nuclear plants, extended outages, or repurposing of nuclear power include: • Aging infrastructure: Many nuclear power plants in the U.S. are nearing the end of their designed operating lives. Upgrading aging infrastructure can be expensive, and some utilities may choose to retire plants rather than invest in costly upgrades. • Low wholesale electricity prices: The deregulation of the electricity market in many states has led to increased competition and driven down wholesale electricity prices, causing nuclear power operators to seek other revenue sources for their heat and power such as clean hydrogen production. • Renewables growth: The rapid growth of renewable energy sources like solar and wind power is posing a challenge to traditional generation sources like nuclear. While many see renewables as a key part of the clean energy transition, their intermittent nature requires additional grid solutions for reliable power supply. • The potential for regulatory decisions to be in conflict: In its 2021 rulemaking, EPA rule (86 FR 880), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set a compliance date for the ban on processing and distribution in commerce of Decabromodiphenyl Ether (DecaBDE). Since DecaBDE is in many components, particularly wiring, of nuclear power plants which are deemed safety-related or important to safety, three plants would not have been able to restart after their 2023 spring outages, and numerous others would have faced issues in the near future. Fortunately, in this case, the EPA provided relief to the nuclear energy industry. The report provides a summary of the significant role nuclear energy plays in the United States’ power generation mix, supplying around 20% of the nation’s electricity generation, spread across 28 U.S. states. Nuclear power is reliable, mostly unaffected by weather and seasonal changes, and provides a consistent source of baseload power. In terms of capacity, nuclear power plants account for as much as 26% of balancing area power generation capacity. Nuclear power also provides a substantial contribution (e.g., 10% of the inertia in the Eastern Interconnection) of the synchronous spinning mass/inertia that buffers the rate at which frequency changes when a load and generation imbalance occurs (e.g., a large plant trips or a load is suddenly shed due to a transmission outage). This contribution is critical for maintaining grid stability during sudden changes in load or generation.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Basic Energy Sciences Roundtable: Foundational Science to Accelerate Nuclear Energy Innovation

Energy security, availability, and reliability are among the greatest challenges facing the nation and the planet. An abundant potential source of energy resides in the fundamental atomic building blocks of the universe in the form of nuclear fission and fusion reactions. In fact, energy from nuclear fission currently provides the majority of the world’s zero-carbon electricity, and future fusion energy systems offer great promise; carbon-free nuclear energy technologies can be key to the world’s decarbonized energy future. Although contemporary fission systems use well-established technologies to supply safe and efficient baseload power, they could be more fuel efficient and less costly. Moving beyond massive light-water fission reactors to a variety of advanced nuclear systems—which will vary in size and operate in extremes of temperature, corrosivity, and other parameters—will place stringent conditions on materials and chemical systems. New demands will be placed on the coolants and solvents, the materials, and the monitoring tools used in these reactors. Fusion-based nuclear energy will require superior materials to withstand extremely high temperatures, plasma exposure, radiation damage, and implanted gases. The advantages associated with these new fission and fusion technologies will be realized only through continued advancements in the fundamental science underpinning our knowledge of the physics and chemistry of nuclear systems gained via improved experimental and computational methods. In July 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences—in coordination with the Offices of Nuclear Energy, Fusion Energy Sciences, and Advanced Scientific Computing Research—held a virtual roundtable titled “Foundational Science to Accelerate Nuclear Energy Innovation” to discuss the scientific and technical barriers for advanced nuclear energy systems. Five priority research opportunities were identified to address these scientific and technical challenges and to accelerate progress toward the realization of next-generation fusion and fission energy systems. The foundational science gaps inhibiting the advancement of nuclear energy technologies are identified and tackled in five priority research opportunities. These opportunities pave the way to accelerate the development and ultimately the adoption of new nuclear energy systems. They include the fundamental aspects of ion-electron interactions; novel properties of next-generation coolants and solvents; interfacial dynamics, not only in solids, but in other aspects of nuclear reactors; novel operando and in situ monitoring and sensing; and artificial intelligence to accelerate condensed phases discovery. Building on the foundation established by previous Basic Energy Sciences workshops, these opportunities encompass recent advances in fundamental knowledge and focus on the experimental and computational methods needed to resolve major technical challenges for nuclear energy technologies. Through developing fundamental scientific insight as well as pushing the frontiers of modeling complex systems and probing the operation of materials and chemical systems in extreme environments, research motivated by the priorities identified here will further develop the promise, potential, and utilization of nuclear energy for a clean energy future.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗