Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “STATE GOVERNMENT”

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 OSTI2021

State Government Revenue Vulnerability Index and Local Government Revenue Vulnerability Index

The State Government Revenue Vulnerability Index (SGRVI) and Local Government Revenue Vulnerability Index (LGRVI) measure the vulnerability of government revenues by estimating monthly changes relative to a January 2020 baseline. Revenues included in both indices include: taxes on products and sales, transportation and housing revenues, individual income taxes, severance taxes and royalties, and property taxes. Local government revenues also include a local revenue from state revenue sharing component. In addition, the main index for the LGRVI for county-level governments includes revenue estimates for sub-county government units, including municipalities, school districts, and special districts. This revenue data is aggregated to produce the indices.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Effective Knowledge Dissemination for LMI Solar: The Roles of Community Organizations and State Governments

This report provides a detailed summary of a three-year effort by the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA) on “Effective Knowledge Dissemination for LMI Solar: The Roles of Community Organizations and State Governments.” The core approach of this project was to work with state energy agencies (SEAs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) to improve their ability to share the knowledge and information that is needed for solar to be developed efficiently, equitably, and cost-effectively in low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2015

Assessing Compliance with United States Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Guidelines

There are currently no exceptions or special considerations for CubeSats in the United States Government (USG) Orbital Debris (OD) Mitigation Guidelines. For all objects launched into space the 2010 United States Space Policy requires that any failure to comply with the USG OD Mitigation Guidelines requires approval by the head of the launching agency. In addition it requires that the US Secretary of State be notified of any non‐compliance. For these reasons it is important that missions consider these policies during their design phase. This paper will discuss methods to assess compliance with USG OD mitigation guidelines as they apply to CubeSat missions using tools such as the NASA Debris Assessment Software (DAS).

Kelley, R. L.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hydrogen Evolution on Electrode–Supported Ptn Clusters: Ensemble of Hydride States Governs the Size Dependent Reactivity

We report the size-dependent activity and stability of supported Pt1,4,7,8 for electrocatalytic hydrogen evolution reaction, and show that clusters outperform polycrystalline Pt in activity, with sizedependent stability. To understand the size effects, we use DFT calculations to study the structural fluxionality under varying potentials. We show that the clusters can reshape under H coverage and populate an ensemble of states with diverse stoichiometry, structure, and thus reactivity. Both experiment and theory suggest that electrocatalytic species are hydridic states of the clusters (~2 H/Pt). An ensemble-based kinetic model reproduces the experimental activity trend and reveals the role of metastable states. Furthermore, the stability trend is rationalized by chemical bonding analysis. Our joint study demonstrates the potential- and adsorbate-coverage-dependent fluxionality of subnano clusters of different sizes and offers a systematic modeling strategy to tackle the complexities.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hydrogen Evolution on Electrode‐Supported Pt n Clusters: Ensemble of Hydride States Governs the Size Dependent Reactivity

Abstract We report the size‐dependent activity and stability of supported Pt 1,4,7,8 for electrocatalytic hydrogen evolution reaction, and show that clusters outperform polycrystalline Pt in activity, with size‐dependent stability. To understand the size effects, we use DFT calculations to study the structural fluxionality under varying potentials. We show that the clusters can reshape under H coverage and populate an ensemble of states with diverse stoichiometry, structure, and thus reactivity. Both experiment and theory suggest that electrocatalytic species are hydridic states of the clusters (≈2 H/Pt). An ensemble‐based kinetic model reproduces the experimental activity trend and reveals the role of metastable states. The stability trend is rationalized by chemical bonding analysis. Our joint study demonstrates the potential‐ and adsorbate‐coverage‐dependent fluxionality of subnano clusters of different sizes and offers a systematic modeling strategy to tackle the complexities.

Zhang, Zisheng↗
DOE OSTI2020

Ensembles of Metastable States Govern Heterogeneous Catalysis on Dynamic Interfaces

Heterogeneous catalysis is at the heart of chemical industry. Being able to tune and design efficient catalysts for processes of interest is of an utmost importance, and for this, the molecular-level understanding of heterogeneous catalysts is the first step, and indeed a prime focus of the modern catalysis research. For a long time, a single most thermodynamically stable structure of the catalytic interface attained in reaction conditions had been envisioned as the reactive phase. However, some catalytic interfaces continue to undergo structural dynamics in the steady state, triggered by high temperatures, pressures, and binding and changing reagents. Among particularly dynamic interfaces are such widely-used catalysts as crystalline and amorphous surfaced supporting (sub-)nano metallic clusters. Recently, it became clear that this dynamic fluxionality causes the supported clusters to populate many distinct structural and stoichiometric states in catalytic conditions. Hence, the catalytic interface should be viewed as an evolving statistical ensemble of many (not one) structures. As such, every member in the ensemble contributes to the properties of the catalyst differently, and in proportion to its probability to be populated. This new notion flips the established paradigm and calls for new theory, modeling approaches, operando measurements, and updated design strategies. The statistical ensemble nature of surface-supported sub-nano cluster catalysts can be exemplified by oxide-supported and adsorbate-covered Pt, Pd, Cu, CuPd clusters, catalytic toward oxidative and non-oxidative dehydrogenation. They have access to a variety of 3D and quasi-2D shapes. The compositions of their thermal ensembles are dependent on the cluster size, leading to size-specific catalytic activities and the famous “every atom counts” phenomenon. The support and adsorbates affect catalyst structures, and state of the reacting species causes the ensemble to change in every reaction intermediate. The most stable member of the ensemble dominates the thermodynamic properties of the corresponding intermediate, whereas the kinetics can be determined by more active but less populated metastable catalyst states, and that suggests that many earlier studies might have overlooked the actual active sites. Both effects depend on the relative time-scales of catalyst restructuring and reaction dynamics. The catalyst may routinely operate off-equilibrium. Ensemble phenomena lead to surprising exceptions from established rules of catalysis, such as scaling relations, and Arrhenius behavior. Catalyst deactivation is also an ensemble property, and its extent of mitigation can be predicted through the new paradigm. These findings were enabled by advances in theory, such as global optimization and subsequent utilization of multiple local minima, and pathways sampling, as well as operando catalyst characterization. The fact that the per-site and per-species resolution is needed for the description and predicting of catalyst properties gives theory the central role in catalysis research, as most experiments provide ensemble-average information and cannot detect the crucial minority species that may be responsible for the catalytic activity.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2013

Economic Model For a Return on Investment Analysis of United States Government High Performance Computing (HPC) Research and Development (R & D) Investment

This study investigated how high-performance computing (HPC) investments can improve economic success and increase scientific innovation. This research focused on the common good and provided uses for DOE, other government agencies, industry, and academia. The study created two unique economic models and an innovation index: 1 A macroeconomic model that depicts the way HPC investments result in economic advancements in the form of ROI in revenue (GDP), profits (and cost savings), and jobs. 2 A macroeconomic model that depicts the way HPC investments result in basic and applied innovations, looking at variations by sector, industry, country, and organization size. A new innovation index that provides a means of measuring and comparing innovation levels. Key findings of the pilot study include: IDC collected the required data across a broad set of organizations, with enough detail to create these models and the innovation index. The research also developed an expansive list of HPC success stories.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRS1980

Improving Building Construction Specifications in State and Local Governments

State and local governments can benefit from master specifications systems that centralize data on all types of building materials, products, and processes. Most of these systems are organized according to the MASTERFORMAT system, which, along with guide specifications that require the insertion or deletion of standardized information, resulted from the specific needs of users and providers. For jurisdictions preparing their own specifications, staff time and cost are reduced. For those subcontracting the preparation, master specifications provide a means of evaluating the specifications submitted. Current management specification systems described include SPECINTACT, OMSPEC, MASTERPEC, and the NAVFAC, Corps of Engineers, and GSA guide specifications.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2024

Williston Basin CORE-CM Initiative Final Report

The University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) is leading the Williston Basin Carbon Ore, Rare Earth, and Critical Minerals (CORE-CM) Initiative to drive the expansion and transformation of coal and coal-based resource usage within the Williston Basin to produce rare-earth elements (REEs), CMs, and nonfuel carbon-based products (CBPs). This project is the first phase in a long-term program and set the stage for future work by assessing resource, market, technology, and infrastructure knowledge; identifying knowledge gaps; developing a series of plans to be carried out in future work; and initiating stakeholder engagement. Composed of several tasks, the project sought to identify, characterize, and assess several necessary aspects vital to make this future work a reality. The project’s fundamental task was to characterize the Williston Basin CORE-CM resources. Over 2500 samples from multiple sources were utilized to begin the assessment. Several locations were identified in western North Dakota where sample analysis identified the total REE (TREE) concentration as being over 500 parts per million (ppm), which is at a concentration level that would be suitable to consider for mining and extraction. Current operating coal mines have sufficient concentrations of TREEs for consideration. However, the current data across the basin are still not adequate to fully characterize REE and CM content nor give reliable estimates of the total resource potential. Waste stream reuse was also considered, and several streams were identified which ranged from potential energy sources to chemicals to material wastes. This includes streams that result from oil and gas production. These streams are not fully characterized, and further data are needed before they can be accurately assessed. Infrastructure within the Williston Basin is suitable for expansion of a new industry to mine, extract, and concentrate REEs and CMs. The development of this industry will not only preserve many existing jobs in the coal-mining industry but produce many new jobs. The supply chain for REEs and CMs is currently controlled outside of the United States in nations such as China, but the potential to develop the supply chain within the basin is considered possible. Processing of the mined materials for REEs and CMs needs further research. The technology and knowhow exist outside of the United States, and within the country much of the knowledge has been lost and must be regained. To develop the supply chain and regain lost processing technology, the creation of technology innovation centers (TICs) is crucial. The Williston Basin contains several similar centers and entrepreneurial assistance for other industries that can be applied in the development of REE and CM innovation centers. Education to develop the new skill sets required is also needed. Outreach is important for the development of the REE and CM industry within the basin. Understanding throughout federal and state governments, state agencies, industry, and resource end users is vital for the industry to form and grow. Through this project these groups have been contacted through bulletins, presentations, webinars, and annual symposiums. The report is a summary of the work conducted and throughout refers to a series of appendixes which contain more thorough and specific information about each section.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2024

MultiSector Dynamics: 2023 Inaugural Workshop Report

Preface The MultiSector Dynamics (MSD) Community of Practice (CoP) hosted an inaugural workshop on October 3-5, 2023 at the University of California, Davis, to bring together members of the MSD community of practice to advance understanding of the co-evolution of human and natural systems, and to build the next generation of tools that bridge sectors, scales, and systems to realize a more resilient and equitable future. The theme of the workshop was "Advancing Complex Adaptive Human-Earth Systems Science in a World of Interconnected Risks". This document outlines the motivation for the workshop, its goals and objectives, the application process, the agenda, overviews of the training sessions offered to the workshop participants and a summary of each breakout session. The MSD workshop report further discusses the feedback from workshop participants and presents some reflections and next steps. The MSD Workshop organizers thank the DOE Office of Science, Earth and Environmental System Modeling, MultiSector Dynamics program area for financial support of its activities through the Integrated Multisector Multiscale Modeling (IM3) project. For more information related to the broader DOE MultiSector Dynamics Program please see https://climatemodeling.science.energy.gov/program-area/multisector-dynamics. D.L.M. and C.M.B. acknowledge support from the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Department of Energy (DOE). Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither theUnited States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, complete- ness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, 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 Laboratory operated by Battelle for the United States Department of Energy Available from:Office of Scientific and Technical Information http://www.OSTI.gov multisectordynamics.org This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4 Suggested citation: Monier, E., Reed, P.M., Vernon, C.R., Hadjimichael, A., Brelsford, C.M., Burleyson, C.B., Dyreson, A.R., Fletcher, S.M., Giang, A., Gupta, R.S., Jackson, N.D., Jones, A.D., Lamontagne, J.R., McCollum, D.L., Morris, J.F., Moss, R.H., Peng, W., Saari, R.K., Srikrishnan, V., Szinai, J.K., Yoon, J. (2024) MultiSector Dynamics: 2023 Inaugural Workshop Report. MSD-LIVE Data Repository. doi:10.57931/2371710.

Monier, Erwan↗
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 OSTI2025

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection Description This dataset contains input and output data for the manuscript Mongird, K. et al. (under review) titled "Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection". Input data corresponds to gridded spatial siting attributes that are necessary to conduct a random forest machine learning analysis of siting feature importance. Output data includes SHAP feature analysis outputs, and classification report values. For data on power plant siting results referred to in the manuscript, please refer to the CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations data download page. The downloadable data includes values for eight different future scenarios for the Western US. 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 Technical Information The dataset includes two sets of data files: (1) CERF gridded siting parameters and (2) Feature analysis outputs and classification reports. All downloadable data is in csv file format. Files with x/y coordinate information use the Albers Equal Area Conic projection (ESRI:102003). 1. CERF Gridded Siting Parameters This directory provides a balanced sample of gridded CERF siting parameters data for eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055, seven different technologies, and eight timesteps. This data serves as input to the feature analysis. It contains the following parameters. region_name - name of region (i.e., state) sited - binary value representing whether the grid cell received a siting of that technology type (1=True) rcp - binary value representing scenario resource concentration pathway (0 = RCP4.5, 1 = RCP8.5) ssp - binary value representing scenario shared socioeconomic pathway (0 = SSP3, 1 = SSP5) climate - binary value representing cooler (0) or hotter (1) GCM forcing tech_name - generation technology name sited_year - year that values correspond to transmission_cost - cost of transmission interconnection pipeline_cost - cost of natural gas pipeline interconnection interconnection_cost - total interconnection cost (sum of transmission cost and gas pipeline cost) lmp - associated locational marginal value ($/MWh) associated with the grid cell, timestep, scenario, and technology xcoord - x-coordinate of location ycoord - y-coordinate of location 2a. Feature Analysis Output The dataset includes the feature analysis shap output for locational marginal price and interconnection cost. It contains the following parameters. technology - generator technology name scenario - name of scenario feature - name of feature, either locational_marginal_price or interconnection_cost value - the mean of absolute value of SHAP values for given feature 2b. Feature Analysis Classification Report This download includes the classification report associated with each random forest model. The dataset contains the following parameters. technology - generation technology name scenario - name of scenario test - one of precision (the proportion of predicted positives that are actually correct), recall (the proportion of actual positives that were correctly identified), f1-score (the harmonic mean of precision and recall) 0.0 - value of test for classification of 0 (grid cell not chosen for siting) 1.0 - value of test for classification of 1 (grid cell chosen for siting) accuracy - accuracy of model (i.e., fraction of all predictions that were right) macro avg - Simple average of test values for all classes weighted avg - Weighted average of test values for all classes, weighted based on 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 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 [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗