Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “export”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Meaningful exports

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

C++, modules, templates↗
DOE OSTI2020

A substantial role of soil erosion in the land carbon sink and its future changes

Realistic representation of land carbon sink in climate models is vital for predicting carbon climate feedbacks in a changing world. Although soil erosion that removes land organic carbon has increased substantially since the onset of agriculture, it is rarely included in the current generation of climate models. Using an Earth system model with soil erosion represented, we estimated that on average soil erosion displaces 5% of newly fixed land organic carbon downslope annually in the continental US. In the lower Mississippi river basin and the Cascades, the fraction can be as large as 40%. About 12% of the eroded organic carbon is eventually exported to inland waters, which is equal to 14% of the simulated net carbon gain by terrestrial ecosystems. By comparing the eroded organic carbon export to rivers with the particulate organic carbon export to oceans, we demonstrated that a large fraction of the carbon export to rivers could have been mineralized in inland waters. Importantly, with a direct comparison of eroded and exported soil organic carbon and land net carbon uptake, we found that Earth system models that ignore soil erosion likely offset the erosional carbon loss by increasing heterotrophic respiration implicitly. But as soil erosion and heterotrophic respiration respond differently to a warming climate, this unrealistic compensation would lead to biased predictions of future land carbon sink.

Tan, Zeli↗
NASA NTRS2018

Rapid Model Import Tool (RMIT)

Our project is about developing a tool to implement conversion of 3D Computer Aided Design (CAD) models produced with software such as Delmia, 3DS Max, or Maya, into a size and format compatible with the Unity 3D environment. RMIT will be used to aid KSC engineering personnel in the design, development, testing, operations, and training on spacecraft, launch vehicles, facilities, and ground support equipment. For our project, we are using Blender, a free/open-source 3D graphics software, with the goal of developing, testing, and deploying a 3D CAD model converter tool. I worked on using Blender to import 3D CAD models exported from CATIA software into Collada file format. The Collada file format has file extension DAE. Importing the Collada DAE file as is into Blender, generates dots and dashes. In 3DS Max, there is an existing OpenCollada plugin and with that plugin, 3DS Max can import the DAE file successfully. But, Blender does not seem to have an OpenCollada plugin, so I worked on writing a new OpenCollada plugin for Blender. Since 3DS Max was able to display the image, I looked into comparing differences between the original DAE file and the DAE file exported from 3DS Max using the OpenCollada plugin. As Collada documents describing digital assets are XML files with file extension DAE, Collada files contains XML tags, making them easily modifiable. After some research, it appears that Blender does not like primitive 2D tags like tristrips and trifans. Changing those tags to polygons slightly improved the image, but the pieces were exploded. I found after further research comparing differences between the original file and the file exported from 3DS Max that the values inside the translate tags in the original file are scaled down by a factor of 25.4 in the exported file from 3DS Max, representing the millimeters to inches conversion (1 inch = 25.4 millimeters). After scaling down values inside all of the translate tags by 25.4, the exploded pieces stuck back in, but the image needed further improvement. I have been able to create a new plugin in Blender that takes the original DAE file, replaces the primitive 2D tags tristrips and trifans with polygons, scales down the values inside the translate tags by a factor of 25.4, and saves the changes into a temporary DAE file. After the temporary DAE file is imported into Blender, the temp file is then deleted, keeping the original DAE file intact. Starting with a DAE file that is exported using the NASA Enterprise Visualization Application (NEVA), a Collada exporter, from CATIA gives better results. NEVA is a Design Visualization product that is used for exporting 3D models from CATIA. With NEVA, the up axis is defined in the top-level node if navigation gravity is enabled. With that file, just replacing the primitive tags tristrips and trifans with polygons in yields a much improved image in Blender. As we identify more differences between the original DAE file and the DAE file exported from 3DS Max, this plugin can be improved further. Our goal is to have a model that is formatted and sized for import into Unity, and we are trying out different 3D programs to see which will work best.

Ayyangar, Arjun↗
DOE OSTI2021

Increasing freshwater and dissolved organic carbon flows to Northwest Alaska’s Elson lagoon

Manifestations of climate change in the Arctic are numerous and include hydrological cycle intensification and permafrost thaw, both expected as a result of atmospheric and surface warming. Across the terrestrial Arctic dissolved organic carbon (DOC) entrained in arctic rivers may be providing a carbon subsidy to coastal food webs. Yet, data from field sampling is too often of limited duration to confidently ascertain impacts of climate change on freshwater and DOC flows to coastal waters. This study applies numerical modeling to investigate trends in freshwater and DOC exports from land to Elson Lagoon in Northwest Alaska over the period 1981-2020. While the modeling approach has limitations, the results point to significant increases in freshwater and DOC exports to the lagoon over the past four decades. The model simulation reveals significant increases in surface, subsurface (suprapermafrost), and total freshwater exports. Significant increases are also noted in surface and subsurface DOC production and export, influenced by warming soils and associated active-layer thickening. The largest changes in subsurface components are noted in September, which has experienced a ~50% increase in DOC export emanating from suprapermafrost flow. Direct coastal suprapermafrost freshwater and DOC exports in late summer more than doubled between the first and last five years of the simulation period, with a large anomaly in September 2019 representing a more than fourfold increase over September direct coastal export during the early 1980s. These trends highlight the need for dedicated measurement programs that will enable improved understanding of climate change impacts on coastal zone processes in this data sparse region of Northwest Alaska.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sources of Propane Consumed in California

Project Scope: The objective of this study is to specify the sources of propane consumed in California. It answers the questions, where does the propane used in California come from and how was it produced? The results of this study provide comprehensive, transparent, and verifiable estimates, based on the 2018 market. The information provided in this report is suitable for use to assess the life cycle carbon intensity of propane used as a transportation fuel in California. As the 2009 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) aims to reduce California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other smog-forming and toxic air pollutants, the appropriate designation of carbon intensity for propane as a transportation fuel is important for evaluating propane’s potential to contribute to GHG goals and understandings in the context of various actions. This study focuses on estimating the shares of total propane consumed in the state of California produced from petroleum refineries, natural gas plants, and bituminous sands sources inside California and elsewhere. Results: An estimated 590 million gallons of propane were consumed in California in 2018, of which, 59.5% originated from refinery production and 40.5% originated from natural gas plants. The majority of this was sourced from refinery production in California, 334 million gallons. Most of the propane imported to California for consumption was sourced from natural gas plants, 113 million gallons, with over half of the imported volume sourced from Canada. The volume sourced from bituminous sand upgrader and fractionator operations was negligible. Details from this analysis are presented in the table below which provides an overview of the propane flows estimated in this study by region and production method. The shares and volumes presented here represent a snapshot for 2018. A significant increase in propane demand, such as could be caused by increased use of propane as a transportation fuel in the state, would affect California’s propane production, imports, and exports. The method and data sources used for the estimates provided in this report also provide the framework which could be used for future updates. Key Method Considerations: The values presented here are based on a two-step approach where the first step was to determine the flows of propane into and out of California from different regions and the second step was to estimate the propane production methods in each region. A volume balance approach is used as the primary method for tracking the volume of propane in and out of California as propane production and import volumes are available by Petroleum Administration of Defense District (PADD) from EIA and neither inter-PADD propane transfers nor state-specific non-prime supplier consumption are available from a public data source. The volume balance performed for this study covered PADD 5 (the West Coast), which includes Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The volume balance used all available public datasets to determine propane production, imports, exports, and consumption. Volumes unaccounted for by these datasets were estimated using the resulting volume balance by assuming market equilibrium. Consumption within each state in PADD 5 was estimated based on known import, export, and production volumes and this amount was used to develop the volume balance. EIA only tracks consumption at the state level by prime supplier sales. The volume balance approach provides the basis to correct for additional propane consumed in-states where propane is transferred to California. To determine the California propane sources and trade in 2018. volume of propane consumed in California, the volume balance approach is again used where it was estimated all imported volumes not specifically flagged for re-export were consumed, and the remaining consumption was produced in-state. The California Energy Commission (CEC) provided the total volume of propane imported and exported from California in 2018; this volume data set along with commodity tracking from the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) which tracks port of entry and final destination was used to determine where propane originated from and where it was ultimately consumed. For example, the CER tracks propane leaving Canada and entering each state within the U.S. Imported propane from Canada to California – marked for California – is assumed to be consumed in California. When no further data were available, import volumes were assumed to be consumed in California without pass-through (i.e., no propane imported to California was directly sold and exported). In most cases, the production method for each propane source region was applied to the volume of propane transferred to California. In other words, the shares of propane sourced from natural gas and refineries for each production region was assigned to California imports based on their contribution to the total volume flows into California to determine the production method for propane consumed in-state. For volumes imported into California from PADD 4, Washington State, Canada, and the rest of the world (Argentina, Chile, Norway, Peru, South Korea, and Trinidad and Tobago), the volumes sourced from petroleum refineries and natural gas plants reflect the either production ratio for the region or, in cases where the sources specific to the amounts exported to California could be determined, the sources specific to the volumes transferred to California.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2023

FUN-BioCROP model with litter decomposition parameters derived from the LIDET dataset

This repository contains the code and data necessary to run the FUN-BioCROP (Fixation and Uptake of Nitrogen-Bioenergy Carbon, Rhizosphere, Organisms, and Protection) model with litter decomposition parameters derived from a modified Monte Carlo simulation that used the Long-term Intersite Decomposition Experiment Team dataset. Related publication:Juice, S.M., Ridgeway, J.R., Hartman, M.D., Parton, W.J., Berardi, D.M., Sulman, B.N., Allen, K.E., & Brzostek, E.R. Reparameterizing litter decomposition using a simplified Monte Carlo method improves litter decay simulated by a microbial model and alters bioenergy soil carbon estimates. Description of Files: FUNBioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd R code with FUN-BioCROP model that can be run with 10 different sets of parameters for litter decomposition (Baseline, LIDET, or eight other best parameter sets identified in the modified Monte Carlo simulation. CORPSE Functions_Bioenergy_V2.R Code with CORPSE model functions, called by FUNBioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd Model Input Data: bulk.csv, bulk_till.csv, rhizo.csv, rhizo_till.csv, litter.csv Initial C and N (kg C or N/m2) pool values for each soil compartment, final values from spin up. All five files have the same columns: (Column - Description - Units) uFastC - Unprotected fast decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 uSlowC - Unprotected slow decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 uNecroC - Unprotected necromass carbon - kg carbon/m2 pFastC - Protected fast decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 pSlowC - Protected slow decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 pNecroC - Protected necromass carbon - kg carbon/m2 livingMicrobeC - Carbon in living microbial biomass - kg carbon/m2 uFastN - Unprotected fast decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 uSlowN - Unprotected slow decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 uNecroN - Unprotected necromass nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pFastN - Protected fast decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pSlowN - Protected slow decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pNecroN - Protected necromass nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 inorganicN - Inorganic nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 CO2 - Carbon in carbon dioxide - kg carbon/m2 livingMicrobeN - Nitrogen in living microbial biomass - kg nitrogen/m2 Model Input Data: FluxTower_AvgSoilT.csv: Average daily soil temperature (oC) at 10 cm depth at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) Energy Farm flux tower from 7/2008-3/2016. (One year of averaged data) Model Input Data: FluxTower_AvgSoilVWC.csv: Average daily soil volumetric water content (VWC) at 10 cm depth at UIUC Energy Farm flux tower from 7/2008-3/2016. (One year of averaged data) Model Input Data: input_CCS_LIDET Study.csv: This file has daily data to run FUN-BioCROP (Column - Description - Units): yr - calendar year - year doy - day of year (1 to 365) (no leap year) - day anpp - aboveground NPP (DayCent) - kg C/m2/day bnpp - belowground NPP (DayCent) - kg C/m2/day aglivc - live aboveground biomass carbon (DayCent) - kg C/m2 bglivcj - live juvenile fine root biomass carbon (DayCent) - kg C/m2 bglivcm - live mature fine root biomass carbon (DayCent) - kg C/m2 aglivn - live aboveground biomass nitrogen (DayCent) - kg N/m2 bglivnj - live juvenile fine root biomass nitrogen (DayCent) - kg N/m2 bglivnm - live mature fine root biomass nitrogen (DayCent) - kg N/m2 nyr - simulation year - year cult - indicates a cultivation event (0 or 1) crop - indicates a new crop (0 or 1) fert - indicates a fertilizer event (0 or 1) frst - indicates the first day of the growing season (0 or 1) harv - indicates a harvest event (0 or 1) last - indicates the end of the growing season (0 or 1) croptype - crop type (0=none; 1=alfalfa; 2=corn; 3=grass clover pasture; 4=soybean; 5=wheat) cropsrl - crop specific root length - mm/g root cultrhizmix - fraction of rhizosphere mixed with bulk soil during cultivation (0.0-1.0) - fraction cultlitmix - fraction of litter mixed with bulk soil during cultivation (0.0-1.0) - fraction harvremov - fraction of above ground biomass removed during harvest (0.0-1.0) - fraction fertamt - fertilization amount - g N/m2 lifehist - plant life history (0 = annual, 1 = perennial) froot_turnover_c - amount of C in fine root turnover - kg C/m2 froot_turnover_n - amount of N in fine root turnover - kg N/m2 agrd_turnover_c - amount of C in aboveground biomass turnover - kg C/m2 agrd_turnover_n - amount of N in aboveground biomass turnover - kg N/m2 leaf_litter_fastfrac - Fast decomposing fraction of leaf litter (0.0-1.0) - fraction root_litter_fastfrac - Fast decomposing fraction of root litter (0.0-1.0) - fraction root_diameter - root diameter - mm root_length - root length - mm root/m2 rhizo_frac - fraction of total soil volume that is rhizosphere (0.0 - 1.0) - fraction date - date in format YYYY-MM-DD Instructions: Save the model code ("FUN-BioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd") and accompanything files (data streams and CORPSE function code) in the same folder. In model code "Chunk 3: Load CORPSE Data Streams" set the working directory (setwd) to the folder with the files saved in step #1. In "Chunk 5: Define LIDET parameter sets" select the litter decomposition parameter set to be used in the run, and comment out all other sets. If changing any parameter values, edit them in "Chunk 6: Load parameters." Run all chunks up to and including "Chunk 10: Prepare Data for Export." In "Chunk 11: Export Output Data" edit data frames for export and filenames, as necessary. "Chunk 12: Graph Total Soil C" makes a figure of C remaining over the model run period. Description of each model chunk (in file FUN-BioCROP_LIDET Study.Rmd): Chunk 1: Remove all functions, clear memory. Removes all functions from R environment, clears the memory. Chunk 2: Load Packages. Loads packages necessary to run the code. Chunk 3: Load CORPSE Data Streams. Sets the working directory and loads the data files necessary to run CORPSE. Chunk 4: Load CORPSE Functions. Loads the R script with CORPSE functions from the working directory, "CORPSE Functions_Bioenergy_V2.R". Chunk 5: Define LIDET parameter sets. Has ten different parameter sets for litter decomposition tested in this study: Baseline parameters, LIDET parameters, and the other 8 best performing parameter sets identified in the modified Monte Carlo. To run the model, all but one parameter set must be commented out. Chunk 6: Load Parameters. Loads all fixed parameters to run the model. Data frame with definitions of parameters is in the CORPSE function script "CORPSE Functions_Bioenergy_V2.R" Chunk 7: Prepare Data Streams. Takes data streams loaded in Chunk 3 and puts them in the format necessary to run the model. The model is coded to run at least two sites at a time, so if only one site is being run it must be run in duplicate. Individual data tables of daily values are created in this chunk from the input data file. Chunk 8: Set Initial Conditions. Creates data tables of soil C and N pools for each soil compartment (rhizo_till, rhizo, bulk_till, bulk, litter) and loads initial values into the data tables. Creates lists for each soil compartment to hold model output. Chunk 9: Load FUN Data and Set Up Matrices. Uses DayCent data to calculate FUN input data: root and leaf N demand, total N demand, plant CN, leaf N available for retranslocation, and litter production. Creates matrices for FUN model outputs. Chunk 10: Run Model. Runs the model. Chunk 11: Prepare Data for Export. Combines data from each day saved as lists into data frames for each soil compartment. Adds values from all soil compartments together to calculate total soil values, creates separate data frames for each soil C and N pool (e.g., protected slow C) for the total soil value. Adds different C and N pools together to calculate total soil C and N for all layers. Creates data frame of ratio of protected to unprotected SOC. Organizes FUN data for export. Chunk 12: Export Results. Exports CSV files of model results to the working directory. Chunk 13: Graph Total Soil C. Makes figure of C remaining over time. Related Links: Original FUN-BioCROP model: https://github.com/BrzostekEcologyLab/FUN-BioCROP LIDET dataset: https://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TD023

Juice, Stephanie↗
NASA NTRS2008

Space Science and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Summary of a Workshop

The United States seeks to protect its security and foreign-policy interests, in part, by actively controlling the export of goods, technologies, and services that are or may be useful for military development in other nations. "Export" is defined not simply as the sending abroad of hardware but also as the communication of related technology and know-how to foreigners in the United States and overseas. The U.S. government mechanism for controlling dual-use items--items in commerce that have potential military use is the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) administered by the Department of Commerce; items defined in law as defense articles fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of State and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Because of the potential military implications of the export of defense articles, the ITAR regime imposes much greater burdens (on both the applicant and the government) than does the EAR regime during the process of applying for, and implementing the provisions of, licenses and technical-assistance agreements. Until the early 1990s export control activity related to all space satellites (commercial and scientific) was handled under ITAR. Between 1992 and 1996 the George H.W. Bush and the Clinton administrations transferred jurisdiction over the licensing of civilian communications satellites to the Commerce Department under EAR. In 1999, however, in response to broad concerns about Chinese attempts to acquire U.S. high technology, the U.S. House of Representatives convened the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People s Republic of China, also known as the Cox Committee. One of the many consequences of the Cox Committee's report was Congress's mandate that jurisdiction over export and licensing of satellites and related equipment and services, irrespective of military utility, be transferred from the Department of Commerce to the State Department and that such equipment and services be covered as defense articles under ITAR. Scientific satellites were explicitly included despite their use for decades in peaceful internationally conducted cooperative scientific research. It is widely recognized that the shift in regulatory regime from EAR to ITAR has had major deleterious effects on international scientific research activities that depend on satellites, spaceflight hardware, and other items that are now controlled by ITAR. Furthermore, contravening U.S. interests in attracting foreign students to U.S. universities, the capture of space technology by ITAR has caused serious problems in the teaching of university space science and engineering classes, virtually all of which include non-U.S. students. This report is a summary of a September 2007 workshop in which participants from the space research communities and the export-control administration and policy communities came together to discuss problems, effects, and potential solutions regarding the application of ITAR to space science. The principal themes and ideas that emerged from the discussions are summarized.

Finarelli, Margaret G.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Arctic Ocean Freshwater: How Robust are Model Simulations

The Arctic freshwater (FW) has been the focus of many modeling studies, due to the potential impact of Arctic FW on the deep water formation in the North Atlantic. A comparison of the hindcasts from ten ocean-sea ice models shows that the simulation of the Arctic FW budget is quite different in the investigated models. While they agree on the general sink and source terms of the Arctic FW budget, the long-term means as well as the variability of the FW export vary among models. The best model-to-model agreement is found for the interannual and seasonal variability of the solid FW export and the solid FW storage, which also agree well with observations. For the interannual and seasonal variability of the liquid FW export, the agreement among models is better for the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA) than for Fram Strait. The reason for this is that models are more consistent in simulating volume flux anomalies than salinity anomalies and volume-flux anomalies dominate the liquid FW export variability in the CAA but not in Fram Strait. The seasonal cycle of the liquid FW export generally shows a better agreement among models than the interannual variability, and compared to observations the models capture the seasonality of the liquid FW export rather well. In order to improve future simulations of the Arctic FW budget, the simulation of the salinity field needs to be improved, so that model results on the variability of the liquid FW export and storage become more robust.

Jahn, A.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Impacts of climate and disturbance on nutrient fluxes and stoichiometry in mixed-conifer forests

Elucidating climatic impacts on stream nutrient export and stoichiometry will improve the understanding of forest carbon (C) storage in a warmer world. We constructed C, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) budgets in four watersheds within a rain-snow transition site and another four within a higher-elevation, snow-dominated site, in California’s mixed-conifer zone. We used these two sites in a space-for-time substitution to assess the potential effects of warming on nutrient cycles in currently snow-dominated areas that will become more rain-dominated. During a non-drought period (water year (WY) 2004 – 2011), mean annual stream exports of C and N in particulate forms at the transition site were double that at the snow-dominated site, suggesting that sediment-associated nutrient losses may increase with warming. The transition site had 12% lower N but double the P content in mineral horizons, lower N:P mass ratios in organic horizons, and lower stream export of dissolved inorganic N than the snow-dominated site. Furthermore, these differences suggest that montane forests may receive lower supply of N relative to P with warming. In addition, given strong interests in forest thinning to increase drought resiliency, we examined changes in stream nutrient export after thinning and during a major drought period (WY 2013 – 2015). Stream exports of C, N, and P were similar between unthinned and thinned watersheds during drought, suggesting negligible thinning impacts on stream nutrient export during excessively dry periods. Taken together, our results suggest that as the climate warms, California’s montane forests may lose more nutrients through erosion and receive less N input than P.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗