Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Environmental Models”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Data Quality Objectives Supporting Radiological Air Emissions Monitoring for the PNNL-Richland Campus: North Campus Construction (Rev. 3)

Starting in fiscal year 2023, the north area of the PNNL-Richland Campus will undergo development. Initially, infrastructure (water, electrical) improvements will be installed. Later development includes the construction of several new office buildings. The area to be developed currently contains no buildings but does have two existing solar-powered ambient air sampling stations. Under the requirements of Washington State Department of Health Radioactive Air Emissions License -005, the PNNL-Richland Campus must operate and maintain a radiological air monitoring program. This revision documents and evaluates how the new North Campus construction impacts ambient air surveillance stations within the development region. This revision also considers current stack configurations and uses an updated environmental dispersion model and updated meteorological data. The DQO team concluded that one sampling station in the construction area will be relocated and the other remain in place. The evaluations conducted for this DQO also identified a third sampling station outside the development area that is recommended for relocation as a result of updated dispersion modeling. Recommended sites for the relocations are presented. Considerations for sampling in and around a construction zone are also addressed. Additionally, programmatic improvements to the ambient air sampling program were identified in the DQO process.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Global Corn Heat Stress: Mean and SD of Degree Days Above 29°C based on NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 Climate Projections

Description This global dataset provides the estimated mean and standard deviation (SD) of corn heat stress (degree days above 29°C) for a set of climate models in NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 at 0.25-degree resolution. The NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 dataset is comprised of global downscaled climate scenarios derived from the General Circulation Model (GCM) runs conducted under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). The current dataset includes: Long-Term Average Degree Days Above 29°C- Historical Long-Term Average Degree Days Above 29°C- SSP245 Long-Term Standard Deviation of Degree Days Above 29°C- Historical Long-Term Standard Deviation of Degree Days Above 29°C- SSP245 The mean and SD are calculated over 1985-2014 for the historical period and over 2035-2064 for future projections. A full description of methods, including growing season, daily temperature distribution, and statistical coefficients, can be found in Haqiqi (2024). The source climate data are obtained from https://ds.nccs.nasa.gov/thredds2/catalog/catalog.html and are described in Thrasher et al (2022). The codes used to create this dataset are available at https://github.com/ihaqiqi/dd29c_nex_cmip6. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling, MultiSector Dynamics under Cooperative Agreement DE-SC0022141. The data processing, computation, and storage were completed on Purdue Anvil supercomputer and cyberinfrastructure supported by the National Science Foundation HDR award # 2118329: "NSF Institute for Geospatial Understanding through an Integrative Discovery Environment (I-GUIDE)". References Haqiqi. I. (2024). Trade can buffer climate-induced risks and volatilities in crop supply. Environmental Research: Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.1088/2976-601X/ad7d12 Thrasher, B., Wang, W., Michaelis, A., Melton, F., Lee, T., & Nemani, R. (2022). NASA global daily downscaled projections, CMIP6. Scientific Data, 9(1), 262. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01393-4

Climate Change↗
DOE OSTI2023

Connecting suborganismal data to bioenergetic processes: killifish embryos exposed to a dioxin-like compound

A core challenge for ecological risk assessment is to integrate molecular responses into a chain of causality to organismal or population level outcomes. Bioenergetic theory may be a useful approach for integrating suborganismal responses to predict organismal level responses that influence population dynamics. In this work, we describe a novel application of Dynamic Energy Budget (DEB), theory in the context of a toxicity framework (Adverse Outcome Pathways, AOP) to make quantitative predictions of chemical exposures to individuals, starting from suborganismal data. We use early life stage exposure of Fundulus heteroclitus to dioxin-like chemicals (DLCs) and connect AOP Key Events (KEs) to DEB processes through “damage” that is produced at a rate proportional to the internal toxicant concentration. We use transcriptomic data of fish embryos exposed to DLCs to translate molecular indicators of damage into changes in DEB parameters (damage increases somatic maintenance costs) and use DEB models to predict sublethal and lethal effects of young fish. By changing a small subset of model parameters, we predict the evolved tolerance to DLCs in some wild F. heteroclitus populations, a data set not used in model parameterization. The differences in model parameters points to reduced sensitivity and altered damage repair dynamics as contributing to this evolved resistance. Our methodology has potential extrapolation to untested chemicals of ecological concern.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Large-scale spatially explicit analysis of carbon capture at cellulosic biorefineries

The large-scale production of cellulosic biofuels would involve spatially distributed systems including biomass fields, logistics networks and biorefineries. Better understanding of the interactions between landscape-related decisions and the design of biorefineries with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in a supply chain context is needed to enable efficient systems. Here we analyse the cost and greenhouse gas mitigation potential for cellulosic biofuel supply chains in the US Midwest using realistic spatially explicit land availability and crop productivity data and consider fuel conversion technologies with detailed CCS design for their associated CO 2 streams. Optimization methods identify trade-offs and design strategies leading to systems with attractive environmental and economic performance. Strategic and operational decisions depend on underlying spatial features and are sensitive to biofuel demand and CCS incentives. US CCS incentives neglect to motivate greenhouse gas mitigation from all supply chain emission sources, which leverage spatial interactions between CCS, electricity prices and the biomass landscape.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Thermal Cooling Water Datasets for Electric Sector Modeling

This spreadsheet contains data inputs associated with representations of water (i.e., use, supply, costs) for thermo-electric based production. Values in this spreadsheet have been used to support multiple transmission-related planning studies, using models such as Regional Energy Deployment System Model (ReEDS). More information about associated studies can be found in Miara et al., 2019 (DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b03037); Cohen et al., 2022 (DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119193); and Cohen et al., 2024 (DOI TBD). Within these transmission-related studies, the values present in this spreadsheet are assigned for simulation of both existing units as well as new capacity build-outs. A summary of worksheets' content as well as associated sources are captured below.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Nuclear Waste Tank Emission Contributions to Particle Size Distribution

Pollutants from anthropogenic activities including industrial processes are ubiquitous to the environment. To understand the impact from industrial aerosol on climate and human health, industrial aerosol needs to be better characterized. Here, in this study, particle number concentrations were used as a proxy for atmospheric pollutants, which include both particles and gases. Particle concentration and size distribution were measured using a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) approximately 4.5 km from primary industrial areas at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, SC. Industrial areas include numerous nuclear waste storage and processing tanks. The SMPS data were divided into two groups depending on the wind direction measured onsite to categorize transport from the industrial area or from elsewhere. Industrial contributions were found to have a higher concentration of particles with sizes less than 200 nm, 859 ± 564 cm -3 , in comparison to non-industrial attributed particles, 733 ± 495 cm -3 on average from March-July 2021. For sizes larger than 200 nm, industrial and non-industrial particles have a similar concentration, 89 ± 59 cm -3 and 99 ± 61 cm -3 , with non-industrial concentrations being slightly larger. To confirm that industrial particles could travel to the sampling location, air dispersion modeling was completed for specific case studies during the sampling period. The atmospheric dispersion modeling results confirmed that particles released at the industrial areas reached the sampling location when the wind direction was favorable for transport from the industrial areas. The greater concentration of smaller-sized particles in industrial emissions has implications for typical particulate measurements (PM2.5), heath impacts, and climatological influences.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Model Package Report: Central Plateau Vadose Zone Models

This model package report describes concisely the modeling objectives, conceptualization, implementation, uncertainty and sensitivity, configuration control, limitations, data needs, and recommendations for improvement of the Central Plateau Vadose Zone Models. This collection of models is developed to meet the vadose zone simulation needs of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis (CA), the Hanford Site Cumulative Impact Evaluation (CIE), and are expected to find other applications in Hanford Site remedial cleanup decision-making processes. This model package report describes and documents the development of the models themselves to fulfill technical approaches defined for the CA and the CIE. This report does not document any specific calculation using these models: instead, applications of individual vadose models to perform specific calculations will be documented in environmental calculation files, including inputs and results, as appropriate. Configuration management for the Central Plateau Vadose Zone Models is managed through assignment of unique sequential numerical version numbers and archival of the models in the Environmental Modeling Management Archive.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Coal-Biomass Co-Firing Power Plants with Carbon Capture and Storage

The United States has set a target to achieve the net-zero economy by 2050. Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) is one of the promising negative-emission routes in the mitigation portfolio to help meet this goal. Coal-biomass co-firing with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a key BECCS technology to realize the carbon mitigation at fossil-fuel power plants. The mitigation potential of co-firing option is affected by numerous critical factors, such as biomass properties, co-firing level, and carbon capture rate. The objectives of the study are to characterize and estimate the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and performance of coal-biomass co-firing power plants with CCS, determine the breakeven co-firing level at power plants necessary to achieve net-zero life cycle emissions, and quantify the variabilities and uncertainties in life cycle emissions. The scope of the life cycle assessment includes the fuel supply, combustion-based power generation, and CO2 transport and storage. A fuel-based life cycle module is developed and embedded in the Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM), a fossil-fuel power plant modeling tool. This study then applies the enhanced IECM to conduct the process-based life cycle assessment for an array of biomass co-firing scenarios. Deterministic analysis indicates that reaching net-zero life cycle emissions in a biomass co-firing plant without CCS deployment is challenging. Combining biomass co-firing and CCS deployment can significantly lower the overall life cycle emissions of power plants. Net-zero life cycle emissions can be achieved with a 20 wt.% co-firing level and 90% CCS when the Powder River Basin coal is co-fired with energy crops or forestry residues. However, the breakeven co-firing level for net-zero emissions depend on the selected fuel properties. Fuel supply and plant operation are the critical stages influencing the life cycle emissions of power plants with 90% CCS. Deployment of deep CCS beyond 90% CO2 capture can remarkably reduce operational emissions and the breakeven co-firing level. With 99% CCS, the breakeven co-firing rate can be reduced to 12% on average. These findings highlight the trade-offs between technical performance and environmental impact of biomass co-firing at coal-fired power plants and emphasize the role of deep CCS in achieving a net-zero emissions future.

Wu, Wanying↗
DOE OSTI2020

Observation of Road Salt Aerosol Driving Inland Wintertime Atmospheric Chlorine Chemistry

Inland sources of particulate chloride for atmospheric nitryl chloride (ClNO2) formation remain unknown and unquantified, hindering air quality assessments. Globally each winter, tens of millions of tons of road salt are spread on roadways for deicing. Here, we identify road salt aerosol as the primary chloride aerosol source, accounting for 80–100% of ClNO 2 formation, at an inland urban area in the wintertime. This study provides experimental evidence of the connection between road salt and air quality through the production of this important reservoir for nitrogen oxides and chlorine radicals, which significantly impact atmospheric composition and pollutant fates. A numerical model was employed to quantify the contributions of chloride sources to ClNO 2 production. The traditional method for simulating ClNO 2 considers chloride to be homogeneously distributed across the atmospheric particle population; yet, we show that only a fraction of the particulate surface area contains chloride. Our new single-particle parametrization considers this heterogeneity, dramatically lowering overestimations of ClNO 2 levels that have been routinely reported using the prevailing methods. The identification of road salt as a ClNO 2 source links this common deicing practice to atmospheric composition and air quality in the urban wintertime environment.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

Refining Planetary Boundary Layer Height Retrievals From Micropulse‐Lidar at Multiple ARM Sites Around the World

Abstract Knowledge of the planetary boundary layer height (PBLH) is crucial for various applications in atmospheric and environmental sciences. Lidar measurements are frequently used to monitor the evolution of the PBLH, providing more frequent observations than traditional radiosonde‐based methods. However, lidar‐derived PBLH estimates have substantial uncertainties, contingent upon the retrieval algorithm used. In addressing this, we applied the Different Thermo‐Dynamic Stabilities (DTDS) algorithm to establish a PBLH data set at five separate Department of Energy's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement sites across the globe. Both the PBLH methodology and the products are subject to rigorous assessments in terms of their uncertainties and constraints, juxtaposing them with other products. The DTDS‐derived product consistently aligns with radiosonde PBLH estimates, with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.77 across all sites. This study delves into a detailed examination of the strengths and limitations of PBLH data sets with respect to both radiosonde‐derived and other lidar‐based estimates of the PBLH by exploring their respective errors and uncertainties. It is found that varying techniques and definitions can lead to diverse PBLH retrievals due to the inherent intricacy and variability of the boundary layer. Our DTDS‐derived PBLH data set outperforms existing products derived from ceilometer data, offering a more precise representation of the PBLH. This extensive data set paves the way for advanced studies and an improved understanding of boundary‐layer dynamics, with valuable applications in weather forecasting, climate modeling, and environmental studies.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

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

CERF↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

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

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

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

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2023

Quantifying the Contributions of Aerosol- and Snow-Produced ClNO 2 through Observations and 1D Modeling

Nitryl chloride (ClNO 2 ) is a radical reservoir that forms and accumulates in the nocturnal atmospheric boundary layer influenced by combustion emissions and chloride (e.g., sea salt and road salt). Upon sunrise, ClNO 2 rapidly photolyzes to generate highly reactive chlorine radicals (Cl • ) that affect the air quality by generating secondary air pollutants. Recent studies have shown road salt aerosols and saline snowpack to be sources of ClNO 2 in the wintertime urban environment; however, the quantitative contributions of each chloride source are not known. In this study, we examine the vertically resolved contributions of aerosol particles and saline snowpack as sources of ClNO 2 by using an observationally constrained snow–atmosphere coupled one-dimensional model applied to wintertime Kalamazoo, Michigan, U.S. Model simulations show that ClNO 2 emitted from urban snowpack can be vertically transported throughout the entire atmospheric boundary layer and can be a significant source of ClNO 2 , contributing up to ~60% of the ClNO 2 budget near the surface. Here, modeled snowpack ClNO 2 emission rates were 6 (±7) times higher than the observationally derived emission rates, suggesting that not all snow chloride is available for reaction. ClNO 2 production from both aerosol particles and snow emissions are required to best simulate the observed surface-level ClNO 2 . Using the traditional bulk parameterization for ClNO 2 produced from particles significantly overestimated ClNO 2 due to the assumption of having equivalent dinitrogen pentoxide (N 2 O 5 ) uptake and chloride availability for the entire particle population. In comparison, the chemically resolved surface area-based parameterization slightly underestimated the observations and had uncertainties deriving from ClNO 2 production from residential wood burning particles.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2020

ARM Aerial Instrument Workshop Report

The mission of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program is to “support transformative science and scientific user facilities to achieve a predictive understanding of complex biological, earth, and environmental systems for energy and infrastructure security, independence, and prosperity.” (https://science.osti.gov/ber) Aligned with the BER central mission, the Earth and Environmental Systems Sciences Division (EESSD) plays a vital role in supporting the fundamental research to understand and predict Earth’s climate and environmental systems, and is also in a unique position to inform the development of sustainable solutions to the nation’s energy and environmental challenges. Specifically, EESSD manages two scientific user facilities: the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility and the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL). These facilities provide the broader scientific community with scientific expertise, technical capabilities, and unique data sets to facilitate science in areas of importance to DOE. As a multi-platform scientific user facility, ARM aims to fulfill the needs predominantly within the EESSD Atmospheric System Research (ASR) and the Earth and Environmental System Modeling (EESM) mission areas, and provide the critical measurements required to improve understanding of aerosol and cloud life cycles and their interactions, and their coupling with the Earth’s surface. Over the years, ARM has carried out piloted and unmanned aircraft campaigns under different organizational and operational paradigms (Schmid et al. 2014, 2016). Building on its success, the ARM Aerial Facility (AAF) continues to complement the ground-based observations with airborne in situ cloud, aerosol, and trace gas observations as well as measurements of atmospheric state and atmospheric radiation. During the past three years, ARM has managed field campaigns using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and tethered balloon systems (TBS) at Oliktok Point in Alaska to improve understanding of atmospheric processes in the Arctic. In 2019, following a careful evaluation of scientific community needs, ARM acquired a Bombardier Challenger 850 regional jet to replace the vintage Grumman Gulfstream-159 turboprop aircraft previously used by AAF. With this new “laboratory in the sky”, AAF is evaluating its current and future aerial observation capabilities to continue satisfying the needs of the research community.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hourly PM 2.5 Estimates across California from 2018 to 2023

This study presents a new data set of hourly PM 2.5 concentrations across California from 2018 to 2023 at a three-kilometer resolution. This data set was developed by assimilating observations from PurpleAir and the U.S. EPA Air Quality System monitors into wildfire smoke forecasts from the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh Smoke (HRRR-Smoke) model using the Gridpoint Statistical Interpolation (GSI) three-dimensional variational data assimilation framework. Archived forecasts of modeled wildfire smoke PM 2.5 from HRRR-Smoke create the background field for assimilation, which is then corrected using surface observations of total PM 2.5 . The resulting reanalysis from GSI provides an estimate of total PM 2.5 that minimizes error from both the observational and the model data. Validation results indicate strong performance, with monthly R 2 values ranging from 0.73 to 0.91 across the six-year data set, comparable to other PM 2.5 data sets. Case studies are presented for three major fire events, the 2018 Camp Fire, 2019 Kincade Fire, and 2020 Lightning Complex Fires to demonstrate the data set’s fidelity in resolving plume dynamics and local exposure patterns. Root-mean-squared error averaged over each month scales with average PM 2.5 concentrations, resulting in a low error under typical conditions but higher absolute errors during extreme smoke events. This is the first long-term, hourly PM 2.5 data set of its kind for California and enables the generation of subdaily exposure metrics, such as peak hourly concentrations, exceedance durations, and time-of-day exposure peaks. The novelty and strong validation of this data set make it a compelling resource for future studies on the impact and significance of subdaily PM 2.5 exposure.

PM2.5↗
DOE OSTI2025

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds Developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 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↗
DOE OSTI2026

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. 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 land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 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↗