Results for “public sector” — Page 15

DOE OSTI2021

Middle Kittanning Coal Waste and Underclay as an Alternative Rare Earth Elements Feedstock

In order to secure domestic sources of rare earth elements (REE) from coal related materials, there must be validation of representative feedstocks. Actively producing coal mines that target the Middle Kittanning coal seam in the Appalachian Basin were compiled. These mines were cross-referenced with publicly available geochemical data such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Mapping Resources Initiative geochemical data along with samples evaluated and characterized by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). This work evaluated the extent of elevated Middle Kittanning underclay concentrations of REE in comparison to other underclay formations. Therefore, further up-scaling of research associated with the separation and extraction of REE and other critical minerals can be beneficial to utilizing domestic REE supplies for various technology sectors, to include energy, biomedical, and defense. Numerous current active mines targeting the Middle Kittanning coal seam represent a geographically significant opportunity for shared feedstocks and collaborations to further understand the role of Middle Kittanning underclay as a critical mineral feedstock.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2022

MOOSE Reactor Module Meshing Enhancements to Support Reactor Physics Analysis

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program develops an integrated suite of advanced reactor physics tools built upon the Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) framework. Each code generally requires an input finite element mesh on which the physics solution is calculated, reported, and transferred to other physics codes. The meshing process is often burdensome for the complex geometries present in reactors due to lack of easy-to-use, open-source meshing tools. To address the bottleneck associated with meshing complex geometries found in nuclear reactors, NEAMS initiated the development of the MOOSE Reactor Module starting in FY21. The Reactor Module builds off the existing MOOSE Mesh System to include targeted meshing capabilities such as the ability to generate hexagonal pin cells, assemblies with ducts, rotating control drums, cores, peripheral zones around a core, as well as the automatic labeling (“reporting IDs”) of pin, assembly, and planar zones to simplify post-processing of results. As a Physics Module in MOOSE, the Reactor Module is open-source, available with any MOOSE installation, directly compatible with MOOSE-based tools, and can be invoked from MOOSEbased applications to generate meshes. Functionality from the Reactor Module has been applied to several advanced reactor concepts to demonstrate user workflow improvements and accuracy. The primary objective of the Reactor Module is to improve useability of MOOSEbased tools by streamlining mesh generation and output inspection processes. During FY22, the functionality of the Reactor Module (and accompanying Mesh System) has been expanded based on user needs. First, the Reactor Geometry Mesh Builder capability developed primarily in FY21 has been refactored and merged to the public MOOSE repository. This capability wraps underlying Reactor Module mesh generators into a “Pin – Assembly – Core” workflow appropriate for conventional Cartesian and hexagonal geometries, and notably assigns material IDs during mesh generation stage and generates only the minimal number of blocks needed in order to reduce computational burden. Biasing and boundary layer options have been added to the base mesh generators as required by thermal hydraulics solvers. The reporting ID functionality has been expanded to differentiate ring-wise and azimuthal sectors within a pin for use with depletion algorithms, and VectorPostProcessor and Reporter objects are now available to integrate solution variables across zones based on ID combinations. Functionality to trim hexagonal meshes along the center or periphery has been developed so users may leverage symmetry and reflective boundary conditions to reduce the mesh size. A flexible and powerful tool to fill the space between two sidesets has been introduced to the framework and can be used for transition layers such as stitching two assemblies together with different numbers of pins, or for complex geometries which do not follow conventional Cartesian/hexagonal patterns. Finally, additional verification problems were performed with NEAMS physics tools in complement with existing NEAMS work.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Potential State Regulatory Pathways to Facilitate Low-Carbon Fuels

States and the federal government are increasingly engaged in the challenges around decarbonizing the electric grid. In particular, regulators, consumers, stakeholders, and utilities recognize the need to carefully consider the role natural gas will play in a decarbonized future. A variety of technology and policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use are available, including energy efficiency programs, demand reduction tools, strategic electrification, and strategies to reduce emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and consumption. Low-carbon fuels – mainly renewable natural gas (RNG) and clean hydrogen – are being considered an important component of decarbonization goals. RNG and hydrogen may be able to meaningfully reduce emissions from processes independent of geologic natural gas, displacing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Although RNG and hydrogen are not cost-competitive today with geologic natural gas and are smaller in scale and potential than other decarbonization options, they can be explored as potential critical tools to decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify or shift off of natural gas entirely, such as air travel, industrial processes, maritime transport, long-distance trucking, space heating on cold days, and railroads (Nadel, 2022). The role of this report is to provide informational context for state utility regulators to understand the impacts of and challenges associated with broader integration of low-carbon fuels, followed by examples of state regulatory actions taken to date to facilitate the development of low-carbon fuels. Setting clear guidance to calculate the environmental benefits of low-carbon fuels and continuing federal and state investments in research and development to reduce costs relative to fossil fuels will be important steps to take to signal the desire to grow the market for these fuels. State public utility commissions may play a key role in setting regulatory frameworks for low-carbon fuels and ensuring that ratepayer funds, if utilized, are done so to further the public interest. This report is intended to summarize decisions that states have made to date on low-carbon fuels. In the spirit of understanding the current market and sharing information, this report provides success stories, and lessons learned across states as regulators implement varying strategies to achieve decarbonization objectives while maintaining their focus on affordability, safety, and reliability of the energy system. The report begins with an introduction of the role of natural gas in the U.S. economy (Section I) and background information on natural gas use, decarbonization, and low-carbon fuels (Section II). Next, the report describes the current market by discussing the scale of current production, emissions intensity, resource potential, and costs of low-carbon fuels compared to geologic natural gas (Section III). Following these sections, the report describes four strategies states have employed to facilitate low-carbon fuels: opening exploratory dockets, approving voluntary tariffs for customers, approving interconnection tariffs for producers, and considering portfolio-wide procurement targets (Section IV). This section lists states that have taken actions in each category, citing utility filings, commission decisions, stakeholder comments, and other relevant sources. Finally, the report concludes with suggested questions regulators may wish to consider regarding low-carbon fuels, in the interest of preparing to make decisions in the future (Section V). These questions include: Are there existing regulatory or technical barriers to voluntary purchases of low-carbon fuels? Can customers work with utilities to procure low-carbon fuels; are producers able to interconnect projects without significant barriers to entry? Should the infrastructure and/or commodity costs of low-carbon fuels be socialized among all ratepayers, or borne solely by the large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers currently driving the market? Should regulated natural gas and/or electric utilities own and operate low-carbon fuel production? How should regulators consider the unique decarbonization potential of low-carbon fuels, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors, in decision-making? Is additional direction or clarity from state policymakers needed? What no-regrets approaches can help facilitate both near-term RNG development and long-term development of hydrogen and other zero-carbon fuels? We collectively wish to express our gratitude to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, for supporting this report and other technical assistance resources for state regulators on natural gas topics. State regulators operate under a variety of policy environments, and states have vastly different types of energy resources, infrastructure, and customers. While there is no optimal regulatory, policy, or technological solution that will be successful in every state, state regulators can benefit by exchanging lessons learned with their peers across the country. We look forward to continued engagement with our fellow commissioners, commission staff, NARUC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other stakeholders to develop sound regulation in the public interest.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

DOE OSTI2020

A Systematic Evidence Based Performance Approach to Regulation of Nuclear Sites in England and Wales - 20058

The Environment Agency for England has developed a systematic evidence-based approach to pursue our strategic environmental objectives for the regulation of nuclear sites. We use an annual evidence review process to ensure effective and efficient targeting of limited resources to achieve those objectives. Over the last 8 years, we have been developing and refining this approach to ensure risk-based and value driven regulation. The approach comprises nuclear site and nuclear sector review processes known as Site Environment Review (SER) and Nuclear Environment Review (NER). This approach complements our regulation of nuclear site permit holders under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). We deliver our regulation of nuclear sites in England and Wales alongside the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The SER process involves the lead regulator for each nuclear site assessing the permit holder's environmental performance across 14 themes, set within the context of the site's main activities and associated waste disposals. Our themes include environmental leadership, resources and climate change, radioactive waste management, facility management and decommissioning, groundwater, and environmental radiological protection. We use evidence from site inspections and working within our subject matter groups to grade current and predicted future environmental performance. We are particularly interested in sustainability and the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) to prevent the creation, and minimise the disposal, of radioactive wastes. We use risk analysis (strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities) to examine performance against our strategic environmental objectives, which are set out, in our 5-year Nuclear Delivery Plan (NDP). The output supports the targeting of our resources at each nuclear site. We consult the relevant permit holders on the SER priorities and use their feedback to refine our plans. We expect all permit holders to take account of our priorities when considering their own programmes of work, objectives and plans. The NER process brings together what we learn and achieve through regulation across the sector. It provides input to planning priorities, supported by qualitative and semi-quantitative evidence. It covers the 28 nuclear sites in England and Wales and spans the same 14 environmental themes. During the process we collate, compile and summarise evidence from the SERs and other sources such as inspection reports and evidence from our other nuclear work programmes. The output is the NER annual report. This provides a snapshot of the status of the nuclear sector and gives insights to enable us to regulate more efficiently and effectively. It also takes account of cross-cutting issues and risks such as changes in international standards, domestic policy, regulatory framework, domestic standards and guidance, learning from experience such as incidents, events and good practice, and innovation, research and development. It provides graphics that illustrate the grading of environmental performance for the nuclear sector across the fourteen environmental themes. This analysis allows benchmarking of nuclear site's environmental performance and the visualisation provides a convenient comparison of performance across themes, sites, and over time. We use this intelligence to inform our investment in training and development of our staff, and our cross-cutting engagement on strategic issues with government, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and other corporate organisations. Adopting this approach can provide benefits with organisational reputation, stakeholder participation and ensuring value from the public investment. This paper describes the history of the SER/NER process, a selection of outputs from the process and ideas for improvement. The paper will be of interest to other regulators and organisations across the world that are interested in supporting continuous improvement. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to included within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2022

Grand Challenges in the Science of Making Torque from Wind: Then and Now

Shifting the electricity supply to renewable sources within the next two decades is the first step in decarbonizing the energy sector, and wind energy will play a central role in enabling this rapid energy transition to clean energy. The international wind energy research community - including NREL researchers - has determined that for wind power to fulfill its expected role as a major global supplier of carbon-free energy, critical challenges around the design, development, and deployment of wind energy must be addressed - quickly. Paul Veers and other NREL researchers joined 100 worldwide wind energy experts in writing a series of 10 articles for publication in Wind Energy Science. With the support and guidance of the European Academy of Wind Energy Publications Committee, the articles synthesize and clarify the most critical wind energy science needs. This presentation introduces the concept of the Grand Challenges and its 10 articles.

decarbonization↗

DOE OSTI2024

Thermodynamic Limits of Redox-Based Thermochemical Processes (REDOTHERM)

Solar thermochemical fuel production is a potential pathway for the production of sustain liquid drop-in fuels, which can help decarbonize the aviation and maritime sectors. In an attempt to analyze the commercial viability of this technology, several studies have been conducted, including system and technoeconomic analysis (TEA) modeling. However, most studies to date simply assume a given redox reactor efficiency, which is significantly higher than demonstrated values to date. While it is widely recognized that utilizing a counter-current flow (CF) configuration could increase the redox reactor efficiency, an over-simplification in the thermodynamic modeling may lead to unphysical results which has been included in multiple publications. The fact that the solar redox reactor is the least developed component in the process chain makes it hard to identify technology gaps and evaluate pathways to deployment at scale using this approach. In this work, a thermodynamic model for a moving oxide system has been developed, in a general form that allows to analyze the system for different redox-active materials, under a wide range of operating conditions, for both parallel and countercurrent flows. The model capabilites are demonstrated, and the model's code will be shared as an open-source on GitHub in the next few months.

chemical looping↗

DOE OSTI2022

Forward-Looking State-of-the-Art Review on Earned Value Management Systems: The Disconnect between Academia and Industry

Earned value management (EVM) is a project management approach that can enhance the probability of project success. It is applied widely across different industry sectors (e.g., energy, aerospace, construction, defense, and manufacturing), generally through the use of an earned value management system (EVMS). A holistic and up-to-date literature review on EVM and EVMS does not exist. A literature review can provide a comprehensive perspective on the topic, identifying and summarizing the existing body of knowledge, as a foundation to advance the state of practice of EVM/EVMS. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to investigate the EVM/EVMS state of the art by critically reviewing academic and industry publications, with a specific focus on the maturity of EVMS and the environment surrounding its implementation. By performing a systematic literature review, the authors identified 600 publications since the inception of the EVM concept in 1962, and then narrowed down this list to 160 relevant publications from the last decade for closer review. The findings include the discovery of eight emergent themes. Of these themes, “forecasting/prediction” constitutes the largest portion of the recent literature, followed by “application of EVMS.” One interesting finding is that EVMS maturity, although being a critical topic, is only discussed in one publication. Publications focused on EVM/EVMS have increased in the last decade and significant differences were found between academia and industry literature in terms of the limitations and extensions of EVM/EVMS, EVMS environment, and compliance. A key finding is that designing a reliable EVMS should combine both technical and social aspects of implementation. This forward-looking paper provides a state-of-the-art review while highlighting gaps in the existing EVM/EVMS body of knowledge and introducing new perspectives to support EVMS research and application.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2022

GCAM-USA v5.3_water_dispatch: integrated modeling of subnational US energy, water, and land systems within a global framework

Abstract. This paper describes GCAM-USA v5.3_water_dispatch, an open-source model that represents key interactions across economic, energy, water, and land systems in a consistent global framework with subnational detail in the United States. GCAM-USA divides the world into 31 geopolitical regions outside the United States (US) and represents the US economy and energy systems in 51 state-level regions (50 states plus the District of Columbia). The model also includes 235 water basins and 384 land use regions, and 23 of each fall at least partially within the United States. GCAM-USA offers a level of process and temporal resolution rare for models of its class and scope, including detailed subnational representation of US water demands and supplies and sub-annual operations (day and night for each month) in the US electric power sector. GCAM-USA can be used to explore how changes in socioeconomic drivers, technological progress, or policy impact demands for (and production of) energy, water, and crops at a subnational level in the United States while maintaining consistency with broader national and international conditions. This paper describes GCAM-USA's structure, inputs, and outputs, with emphasis on new model features. Four illustrative scenarios encompassing varying socioeconomic and energy system futures are used to explore subnational changes in energy, water, and land use outcomes. We conclude with information about how public users can access the model.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2021

Characterizing manufacturing wastewater in the United States for the purpose of analyzing energy requirements for reuse

This paper seeks to inform an improved understanding of the energy tradeoff associated with on-site manufacturing water reuse in the United States from a lifecycle perspective, in part by developing an analytical framework for understanding when this tradeoff for reuse is beneficial. We survey the literature to assess the current state of reuse and its motives and barriers in the United States, before synthesizing information from publicly available EPA data on contaminants in US manufacturing wastewaters and technologies for treating them. Using the available data, we derive a set of “ubiquitous contaminants” among the top ten in terms of mass discharged in more than half of US manufacturing subsectors (NAICS 31–33) according to EPA permit data. We also present information on proven treatment trains and their energy requirements. We then compare water quality requirements for specific contaminants in reclaimed water to those characteristic of wastewater streams currently being discharged from manufacturing plants into surface waters to highlight sectors with reuse opportunities that could require little cost to realize, such as primary metals and, to a lesser extent, petroleum and coal products. We conclude by highlighting data limitations that need to be rectified before applying the framework more broadly and discussing how these data gaps could be filled. Better understanding the relationship between energy and water in the context of on-site manufacturing water reuse would allow manufacturers to improve resiliency by reducing regulatory, physical, and reputational risks while lessening their footprint on local watersheds.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2026

Taming the Wild West: Assessing Impacts-Relevant Climate Data Products (Abbreviated Report)

Impacts-relevant Earth system data refers to observational and ESM data that are downscaled, debiased, validated, and provisioned for use by decision-makers. Impacts-relevant Earth system data is essential for mitigation and adaptation planning across a variety of regions and sectors. A vast number of these data products have emerged in recent years, which has led to confusion among stakeholders and scientists as to the best product to use. With no standard evaluation protocol available for these products, the decision on which product to use was sometimes made because it was pragmatic rather than the best product to use. This project sought to develop foundational capabilities around impacts-relevant data products that would support more informed selection and application of these products. This work has been immensely successful, driving several academic publications and supported the development of a community of practice around impacts-relevant data products. Over the project’s three years we have addressed six tasks: First, the development of standard evaluation metrics for impacts-relevant climate data; second, the development of a novel suite of atmospheric river metrics; third, the development of novel metrics for precipitation feature analysis; fourth, the development of novel metrics for assessing co-variances between temperature and precipitation; fifth, the development of a dashboard for interactive examination of impacts-relevant climate data; and sixth, the establishment of a community of practice around impacts-relevant climate data that will continue beyond the conclusion of this project.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Taming the Wild West: Assessing Impacts-Relevant Climate Data Products (Final Report)

Impacts-relevant Earth system data refers to observational and ESM data that are downscaled, debiased, validated, and provisioned for use by decision-makers. Impacts-relevant Earth system data is essential for mitigation and adaptation planning across a variety of regions and sectors. A vast number of these data products have emerged in recent years, which has led to confusion among stakeholders and scientists as to the best product to use. With no standard evaluation protocol available for these products, the decision on which product to use was sometimes made because it was pragmatic rather than the best product to use. This project sought to develop foundational capabilities around impacts-relevant data products that would support more informed selection and application of these products. This work has been immensely successful, driving several academic publications and supported the development of a community of practice around impacts-relevant data products.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

MIXv2: a long-term mosaic emission inventory for Asia (2010–2017)

The MIXv2 Asian emission inventory is developed under the framework of the Model Inter-Comparison Study for Asia (MICS-Asia) Phase IV and produced from a mosaic of up-to-date regional emission inventories. We estimated the emissions for anthropogenic and biomass burning sources covering 23 countries and regions in East, Southeast and South Asia and aggregated emissions to a uniform spatial and temporal resolution for seven sectors: power, industry, residential, transportation, agriculture, open biomass burning and shipping. Compared to MIXv1, we extended the dataset to 2010–2017, included emissions of open biomass burning and shipping, and provided model-ready emissions of SAPRC99, SAPRC07, and CB05. A series of unit-based point source information was incorporated covering power plants in China and India. A consistent speciation framework for non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) was applied to develop emissions by three chemical mechanisms. The total Asian emissions for anthropogenic/open biomass sectors in 2017 are estimated as follows: 41.6/1.1 Tg NO x , 33.2/0.1 Tg SO 2 , 258.2/20.6 Tg CO, 61.8/8.2 Tg NMVOC, 28.3/0.3 Tg NH 3 , 24.0/2.6 Tg PM 10 , 16.7/2.0 Tg PM 2.5 , 2.7/0.1 Tg BC (black carbon), 5.3/0.9 Tg OC (organic carbon), and 18.0/0.4 Pg CO 2 . The contributions of India and Southeast Asia were emerging in Asia during 2010–2017, especially for SO 2 , NH 3 and particulate matter. Gridded emissions at a spatial resolution of 0.1° with monthly variations are now publicly available. This updated long-term emission mosaic inventory is ready to facilitate air quality and climate model simulations, as well as policymaking and associated analyses.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Clean energy technology pathways from research to commercialization: Policy and practice case studies

Clean energy research and development (R and D) leading to commercial technologies is vital to economic development, technology competitiveness, and reduced environmental impact. Over the past 30 years, such efforts have advanced technology performance and reduced cost by leveraging network effects and economies of scale. After demonstrating promise in applied R and D, successful clean energy and energy efficiency technologies are incorporated into an initial product sold by the private sector. Despite its importance, processes by which first commercialization occurs are difficult to generalize while capturing specific insights from practitioners in markets and technologies. This paper presents a policy-focused qualitative assessment of the first commercialization of four diverse energy technologies: thin film photovoltaics, wind turbine blades, dual-stage refrigeration evaporators, and fuel cells for material handling equipment. Each technology presents distinct value propositions, markets, and regulatory drivers. The case studies indicate three common characteristics of successful first commercialization for new energy technologies: 1) good fit between the technology, R&D infrastructure, and public-private partnership models; 2) high degree of alignment of government regulations and R&D priorities with market forces; and 3) compatibility between time scales required for R&D, product development, and opportunities. These findings may inform energy investment decision-making, maximize benefits from R&D, and advance the transition to a low-emission future.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2020

BEPAM-E Model Code and CABBI Simulation Results for "Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications"

The dataset consists of results and various input data that are used in the GAMS model for the publication "Repeal of the Clean Power Plan: Social Cost and Distributional Implications". All the data are either excel files or in the .inc format which can be read within GAMS or Notepad. Main data sources include: agriculture, transportation and electricity data. Model details can be found in the paper and the GAMS model package.

carbon abatement↗

DOE OSTI2022

U.S. Department of Energy: National Virtual Biotechnology Laboratory (Technical Report)

With funding from the CARES Act, the U.S Department of Energy (DOE) established the National Virtual Biotechnology Laboratory (NVBL) in March 2020 to address key challenges associated with the COVID-19 crisis. The NVBL brought together the broad scientific and technical expertise and resources of DOE’s 17 national laboratories to help tackle medical supply shortages, discover potential drugs to fight the virus, develop and validate COVID-19 testing methods, model disease spread and impact across the nation, and understand virus transport in buildings and the environment. National laboratory resources leveraged for this effort include a suite of world-leading user facilities broadly available to the research community, such as light and neutron sources, nanoscale science research centers, sequencing and biocharacterization facilities, and high-performance computing facilities. As part of the NVBL framework, DOE rapidly assembled five project teams to (1) identify new targets for medical therapeutics; (2) develop innovations in testing capabilities; (3) provide epidemiological and logistical support; (4) understand viral fate and transport in the environment; and (5) address supply chain bottlenecks by harnessing extensive additive manufacturing capabilities. Each research team was charged with defining high-impact projects that could be completed in a 6-month sprint while coordinating their developments with academia, other government agencies, and the private sector. Within months, NVBL teams used DOE’s high-performance computers and light and neutron sources to identify promising candidates for antibodies and antivirals that universities and drug companies are now evaluating. NVBL researchers also developed new diagnostic targets and sample collection approaches, and supported efforts by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Defense to establish national guidelines used in administering millions of tests. Researchers used artificial intelligence and high-performance computing to produce near-real-time data analysis to forecast disease transmission, stress on public health infrastructure, and economic impact, which supported decision-makers at the local, state, and national levels. To minimize virus uptake and protect human health, NVBL teams studied how to control indoor virus movement. Researchers also produced innovations in materials and advanced manufacturing that mitigated shortages in test kits and personal protective equipment, creating nearly 1,000 new jobs. Through its NVBL framework, DOE has contributed significantly to the nation’s COVID response, demonstrating in only a few months the critical impact of its national laboratories. NVBL’s accomplishments demonstrate not only the powerful resource represented by DOE’s national laboratories working together to meet national needs, but also the effectiveness of the integrated NVBL framework for rapidly responding to emergencies with research and development solutions. Going forward, the NVBL is poised to apply the unique capabilities and expertise of the national laboratory complex to future national and international emergencies, both natural and engineered. Through this framework, DOE will continue to be an integral component of agency-wide efforts to prepare for and respond to biorisks and other crises. This technical report describes the goals, progress, and results of NVBL’s five project teams—Molecular Design for COVID-19 Therapeutics, COVID-19 Testing, Epidemiological Modeling, Viral Fate and Transport, and Materials and Manufacturing of Critical Supplies—and lists each team’s publications and research output.

42 ENGINEERING↗