Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Location”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

How Good Is Your Location? Comparing and Understanding the Uncertainties in Location for the 1993 Rock Valley Sequence

Accurate event locations are important for many endeavors in seismology, and understanding the factors that contribute to uncertainties in those locations is complex. In this article, we present a case study that takes an in-depth look at the accuracy and precision possible for locating nine shallow earthquakes in the Rock Valley fault zone in southern Nevada. These events are targeted by the Rock Valley Direct Comparison phase of the Source Physics Experiment, as candidates for the colocation of a chemical explosion with an earthquake hypocenter to directly compare earthquake and explosion sources. For this comparison, it is necessary to determine earthquake hypocenters as accurately as possible so that different source types have nearly identical locations. Our investigations include uncertainty analysis from different sets of phase arrivals, stations, velocity models, and location algorithms. For a common set of phase arrivals and stations, we find that epicentral locations from different combinations of velocity models and algorithms are within 600 m of one another in most cases. Event depths exhibit greater uncertainties, but focusing on the S-P times at the nearest station allows for estimates within approximately 500 m.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Liquid Fed Pyrolysis of Polyethylene Films: Environmental and Economic Assessments of Co-located and Remotely-Located U.S. Facilities

Polyethylene (PE) films are one of the highest production volume plastic products, but they have very low recycling rates. A novel liquid fed pyrolysis process (LFP) is an advanced recycling technology that can be applied to waste PE films. In this work, two environmental and six economic metrics were evaluated for the LFP process under different scenarios with a baseline production capacity of 8,400 Metric Tons (MT) of pyrolysis products/year. The studied scenarios considered process improvement such as heat integration, changing the final product yields, and location of the LFP process facility (i.e., co-located at a petrochemical facility or located remotely). Results show that producing refined pyrolysis wax in remote areas is the most environmentally favorable and profitable scenario. The LFP process co-located at a petrochemical facility and selling only liquid and gaseous pyrolysis products to the facility would require a capacity of >18,000 MT/year to be economically feasible. Heat integration led to greenhouse gas emission savings of at least 14%, 19%, and 32% for the pyrolysis oil, gas, and wax products, respectively. Fianlly, the LFP process in remote and less populated locations producing a high yield of refined wax may be a feasible solution for increasing recycling rates of PE films.

Advanced recycling↗
DOE OSTI2026

Minimizing the Electromechanical Stresses in Poloidal Field Coils by Optimizing their Numbers and Locations using FREDA Framework

Poloidal field (PF) and central solenoid (CS) coils play a crucial role in sustaining the equilibrium and preserving the shape of highly confined tokamak plasmas. Ensuring that PF coil current and mechanical stress stay within superconducting and structural limitations is an important check in the design assessment. Minimizing the PF coil currents and mechanical stresses influences reliability, cost, and performance. A free-boundary MHD equilibrium code—FreeGS is employed within the fusion reactor design and assessment (FREDA) whole facility modeling (WFM) framework to construct the plasma equilibrium based on the configuration and currents in the PF coils. Here, we present the capability of the FreeGS code to minimize the currents, forces, and electromagnetic stresses on the PF coils by optimizing their number, sizes, structures, and locations while maintaining an MHD stable plasma configuration with a large confinement factor. The workflow is initialized with a configuration of plasma parameters and coils’ locations from the 0-D tokamak build systems code in the FREDA framework. Then, FreeGS is called to calculate the initial equilibrium at the minimum total current in PF coils. Thereafter, FreeGS’s internal optimizer minimizes the currents and hoop and central forces on the PF coils while maintaining the reference equilibrium. Finally, the input configuration is updated with the optimized parameters for equilibria over the ramp-up phase of a burning-plasma operation. FREDA’s whole facility optimization capability, which includes all magnetic field coil systems, blanket, vacuum vessel (VV), first wall, divertor, etc., is under development and out of the scope for this study.

Hassan, Ehab [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000181060301)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Multi-site Milling Strategy Reveals Significant Variation in Biomass Composition of Switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum ) Grown at Ten Locations

Cell wall composition influences biomass use as a forage and as a feedstock for biofuel and chemical conversion. To examine the influence of environment on composition of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), we utilized a multi-environment experiment consisting of clones of switchgrass genotypes grown at up to ten locations in the continental US. We tested the influence of different milling treatments on biomass composition trait predictions via near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS). We found that most compositional trait predictions (29/34) were significantly different (P < 0.05) when a single lot of biomass was subjected to disparate milling treatments, i.e., knife milling vs. knife milling with an additional cyclone milling. Further, depending on the plant material tested, three to eight compositional trait predictions vary (P < 0.05) when identical biomass was knife milled at different sites followed by cyclone milling at a single site, including for traits such as Klason lignin, nitrogen, and carbon. In some cases, variation due to milling site exceeded environmentally induced compositional variation of a single switchgrass genotype grown at different sites. From these observations, we recommend a protocol with two sequential millings that decouples growth environment from a particular mill. Utilizing this approach, we found that 46/46 biomass composition traits from the warm season herbaceous forage and switchgrass bioethanol NIRS equations vary significantly (P < 0.001) in clones of a switchgrass genotype (WBC) grown at ten sites, with the growth site representing the largest average source of variation (41%). This multi-site milling approach can be used to examine environmental and gene-by-environment influences on composition with the goal of optimizing cell wall composition in different environments for biomass utilization.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Connecting cation site location to alkane dehydrogenation activity in Ni/BEA catalysts

Ni-modified beta zeolite (Ni/BEA) catalysts activate carbon-hydrogen bonds in light alkanes, as demonstrated through isobutane reaction testing. Controlled synthesis of Ni/BEA allows for efficient introduction of ion-exchanged Ni sites at varying Ni loadings (0.43% - 1.8%). These catalysts exhibit site time yields (STY) for H2 production that increase with increasing Ni loading. A detailed analysis of secondary reactions and carbon deposition based on the relative molar flowrates of product C and H indicates that the observed increase in H2 STY with increasing Ni loading is likely attributed to both increasing alkane activation activity and increasing formation of hydrogen-deficient aromatic products retained within the catalyst pores. In situ diffuse-reflectance UV-visible-NIR absorbance and X-ray absorption spectroscopies indicate isolated, 4-coordinate Ni(2+) species for all loadings. Quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics modeling identifies two distinct Ni(2+) sites consistent with the structural characterization, but with differing relative stabilities due to their coordination environment. Computed reaction energetics for isobutane dehydrogenation demonstrate that the more stable Ni(2+) species at a six-membered 4Si-2Al ring, Ni-6MR, is less active for isobutane dehydrogenation than the less stable Ni(2+) at the five-membered 3Si-2Al ring, Ni-5MR. The differing local structure of the isolated cationic Ni sites in Ni/BEA offers a possible rationalization for the increased H2 STY observed at greater Ni loadings.

catalysts↗
DOE OSTI2026

Location Identifiers, Metadata, and Map for Field Measurements at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory, Colorado, USA (Version 3.3)

This dataset contains identifiers, metadata, and a map of the locations where field measurements have been conducted at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. This is version 3.3 of the dataset and replaces the prior version 3.2 (see below for details on changes between the versions). Dataset description: The East River-Taylor Watershed is the primary field site of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Researchers from several institutions generate highly diverse hydrological, biogeochemical, climate, vegetation, geological, remote sensing, and model data at the East-Taylor Watershed in collaboration with the WFSFA. Thus, the purpose of this dataset is to maintain an inventory of the field locations and instrumentation to provide information on the field activities in the East-Taylor Watershed and coordinate data collected across different locations, researchers, and institutions. The dataset contains (1) a README file with information on the various files, (2) three csv files describing the metadata collected for each surface point location, plot and region registered with the WFSFA, (3) csv files with metadata and contact information for each surface point location registered with the WFSFA, (4) a csv file with with metadata and contact information for plots, (5) a csv file with metadata for geographic regions and sub-regions within the watershed, (6) a compiled xlsx file with all the data and metadata which can be opened in Microsoft Excel, (7) a kml map of the locations plotted in the watershed which can be opened in Google Earth, (8) a jpg image of the kml map which can be viewed in any photo viewer, and (9) a zipped file with the registration templates used by the SFA team to collect location metadata. The zipped template file contains two csv files with the blank templates (point and plot), two csv files with instructions for filling out the location templates, and one compiled xlsx file with the instructions and blank templates together. Additionally, the templates in the xlsx include drop down validation for any controlled metadata fields. Persistent location identifiers (Location_ID) are determined by the WFSFA data management team and are used to track data and samples across locations. Dataset uses: This location metadata is used to update the Watershed SFA’s publicly accessible Field Information Portal (an interactive field sampling metadata exploration tool; https://wfsfa-data.lbl.gov/watershed/), the kml map file included in this dataset, and other data management tools internal to the Watershed SFA team. Version Information: The latest version of this dataset publication is version 3.3. This version contains 167 new point locations, 1 new plot, and 2 new geographic regions. Overall, there are a total of 1439 point locations, 75 plots, and 54 geographic regions. Additionally, the kml map of locations and image now includes two boundaries (Upper Ohio Creek (UO) and Carbon Creek (CA)) outside of the East River watershed (USGS HUC-10) and accompanying stream network that represents areas of focus. Refer to methods for further details on the version history. This dataset will be updated on a periodic basis with new measurement location information. Researchers interested in having their East-Taylor Watershed measurement locations added to this list should reach out to the WFSFA data management team at wfsfa-data@googlegroups.com. Acknowledgments: Please cite this dataset if using any of the location metadata in other publications or derived products. If using the location metadata for the 2018 NEON hyperspectral campaign, additionally cite Chadwick et al. (2020). doi:10.15485/1618130. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
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 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 OSTI2022

ESS-DIVE Reporting Format for Location Metadata

The ESS-DIVE location metadata reporting format provides instructions and templates for reporting a minimum set of metadata for discrete point locations in geographic space represented by x, y, and z coordinates. This format was created based on a need for earth and environmental science researchers to more consistently provide metadata about locations where they conduct studies. To create the format, we incorporated elements from ESS-DIVE’s community reporting formats as well as 12 additional data standards or other data resources (e.g., databases, data systems, or repositories). In the template, we ask researchers to indicate unique locations using Location IDs and indicate hierarchies of locations through parent location IDs. We also provide additional optional fields for researchers to indicate how they measured the point location and the date and time that the location was first used as a research siteThis dataset contains support documentation for the reporting format (README.md and instructions.md), a terminology guide (guide.md), a crosswalk indicating how this reporting format relates to existing standards and data resources (Location_metadata_crosswalk.csv), a data dictionary (dd.csv), file-level metadata (flmd.csv), and the location metadata templates in both CSV (Location_metadata_template.csv) and Excel formats (Location_metadata_template.xlsx).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Evaluating the location capabilities of a regional infrasonic network in Utah, US, using both ray tracing-derived and empirical-derived celerity-range and backazimuth models

SUMMARY More realistic models for infrasound signal propagation across a region can be used to improve the precision and accuracy of spatial and temporal source localization estimates. Motivated by incomplete infrasound event bulletins in the Western US, the location capabilities of a regional infrasonic network of stations located between 84–458 km from the Utah Test and Training Range, Utah, USA, is assessed using a series of near-surface explosive events with complementary ground truth (GT) information. Signal arrival times and backazimuth estimates are determined with an automatic F-statistic based signal detector and manually refined by an analyst. This study represents the first application of three distinct celerity-range and backazimuth models to an extensive suite of realistic signal detections for event location purposes. A singular celerity and backazimuth deviation model was previously constructed using ray tracing analysis based on an extensive archive of historical atmospheric specifications and is applied within this study to test location capabilities. Similarly, a set of multivariate, season and location specific models for celerity and backazimuth are compared to an empirical model that depends on the observations across the infrasound network and the GT events, which accounts for atmospheric propagation variations from source to receiver. Discrepancies between observed and predicted signal celerities result in locations with poor accuracy. Application of the empirical model improves both spatial localization precision and accuracy; all but one location estimates retain the true GT location within the 90 per cent confidence bounds. Average mislocation of the events is 15.49 km and average 90 per cent error ellipse areas are 4141 km2. The empirical model additionally reduces origin time residuals; origin time residuals from the other location models are in excess of 160 s while residuals produced with the empirical model are within 30 s of the true origin time. We demonstrate that event location accuracy is driven by a combination of signal propagation model and the azimuthal gap of detecting stations. A direct relationship between mislocation, error ellipse area and increased station azimuthal gaps indicate that for sparse networks, detection backazimuths may drive location biases over traveltime estimates.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗