Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “contractors”

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 325 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html 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 The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. 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↗
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 OSTI2026

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with Mongird et al. (in prep) organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSI+RP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_ep_score_raster.tif solar_msi_ep_score_raster.tif wind_msi_ep_score_raster.tif 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. 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

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with the Mongird et al. paper entitled "Can US power grid expansion avoid prime agricultural lands?" and is organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSIxRP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_rp_score_raster.tif solar_msi_rp_score_raster.tif wind_msi_rp_score_raster.tif 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. 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

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2026

Solar and Battery Storage Permitting and Siting Requirements - Solar Prize Round 7 (CRADA Final Report)

The purpose of this research project was to aggregate zoning and permitting data for utility-scale solar PV and battery energy storage systems. The ultimate goal of this collaboration is to lower solar and battery energy storage system soft costs by streamlining regulatory due diligence and reducing the burden of conducting feasibility assessments for solar and storage systems. The below sections describe the specific research completed by NLR (the contractor) in furtherance of the agreement with Vanox (the participant).

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

FX Hg Fogging Fixative Deployment for Mercury Vapor Suppression

Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL) FX Hg fixative solution was deployed at the Y-12 Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee to support disposal of mercury-contaminated metal debris. The fixative was dispensed via fogging. Fogging infiltrates non-line-of-sight areas improving fixative coating on complex geometries such as debris piles. FX Hg is the mercury vapor controlling derivative of INL’s FX2 fixative. FX2 was jointly developed with the National Nuclear Laboratory of the United Kingdom, and INL developed the FX Hg derivative to suppress mercury vapor generation. The Y-12 deployment was performed in concert with cleanup contractor UCOR. A dumpster filled with debris was fogged with FX Hg. The material was acceptable as municipal landfill waste, save for the mercury vapor levels measured. If the mercury vapor generation rate could be sufficiently reduced, disposal costs for this waste would be dramatically reduced. FX Hg had previously proven effective at significantly reducing mercury vapor generation rates in bench scale testing at INL. This deployment was the first field scale deployment of the method. Efficacy results were underwhelming, but interpretation of the outcome is complicated by a paucity of hard data. Methods for improving data capture and analysis are analyzed. Operational difficulties associated with scaling the process up and process improvements for future deployments are discussed.

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

Quarterly Technical Progress Report Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS™) Front End Engineering Design

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document summarizes the status of Cooperative Agreement DE-FE0031844, “Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS™) Front-End Engineering Design,” during the reporting period of January 1 through March 31, 2020. The objective of this project is to develop accurate installed costs by conducting a Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) of PZAS™ at Golden Spread Electric Cooperative’s (GSEC) Mustang Station located in Denver City, TX. Complementary benefits include positioning the technology for a commercial project with the 45Q tax credits, qualifying PZAS™ for use on a Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Cogen facility, and to provide cost detail to optimize PZAS™ and help guide R&D of second-generation solvent CO2 capture technologies. Results from the FEED will be used to evaluate the economic feasibility of the process at Mustang Station. This project is funded by the U.S. DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory under the aforementioned Cooperative Agreement. Exxon, Total, Chevron, UOP-Honeywell, and the University of Texas (UT) are project co-funders. AECOM and Trimeric are project team members; UT is the prime contractor. Summary of Progress Cooperative Agreement DE-FE0031844 was established in October 2019. The current reporting period, January 1 through March 31, 2020, is the second technical progress reporting period for the project. Several milestones were accomplished during this reporting period, including: • Kickoff Meeting with DOE on February 3, 2020. • Kickoff Meeting with GSEC on March 30, 2020. (Note: Due to Covid-19 travel restrictions and shelter-in-place guidelines, the kickoff meeting was conducted remotely via videoconferencing. See attached notes from that telecon.) • Updated Project Management Plan March 2020, submitted with this quarterly report Other activities during the quarter included progress on contracting and other legal agreements (e.g., non-disclosure agreements), internal kickoff meetings at both AECOM and Trimeric, and development of a Technical Implementation Plan (TIP). The TIP will help the team to make critical, early process decisions and, ultimately, to develop a project and process design basis. Note that all agreements between project team participants are complete as of this submittal, except the vendor agreement with Kiewit (steam cycle modeling). Plans for Next Reporting Period Activities during the next reporting period (April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020) include: the completion of the Project Design Basis and progress towards the Process Design Basis/Process Design Package (PDP). The Project Design Basis is due as a deliverable and milestone during the next reporting period.

Rochelle, Gary T.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Stochastic Analysis for Long Term Capital Structures, Systems, and Components Refurbishment and Replacement

As commercial Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) pursue extended plant operation in the form of Second License Renewal (SLR), opportunities exist for these plants to provide capital investments to ensure long-term safe and economic performance. At the current time, several utilities have announced an intention to pursue extended operation for one or more of their NPPs via SLR . The goal of this research is to develop a risk-informed approach to evaluate and prioritize plant capital investments made in preparation for, and during the period of, extended plant operations to support decisions for NPP operations. Since the capital investments are influenced by various factors, such as markets, safety and regulatory, the decision-making process of NPP operations should take into account relevant factors for balancing risks, costs and profits. The traditional method of capital budgeting is based on the priority list of candidate projects using economic measures such as benefit-investment ratio, net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return. In the literatures, the problem of capital budgeting or the variant can be represented by an appropriate knapsack problem. The knapsack approach to capital budgeting takes as input as investment, along with the cost and profit of each project. The objective of capital budgeting is to find the combination of the binary decisions for every investment such that the overall profit is as large as possible. The output is a collection of projects to be carried out, and we refer this selected collection of projects as a project portfolio. One limitation of traditional optimization models for capital budgeting is that they do not account for risk/uncertainty in profit and cost streams associated with individual projects, they do not account for risk in resource availability in future years [1,2,3]. Projects can incur cost over-runs, especially when projects are large, performed infrequently, and when there is risk regarding technical viability, external contractors, and/or suppliers of requisite parts and materials. Occasionally, projects are performed ahead of schedule and with cost savings. Planned budgets for capital improvements can be cut and key personnel may be lost. Or, there may be surprise windfalls in budgets for maintenance activities due to decreased costs for “unplanned” maintenance. In these cases, how should we resolve capital budgeting when we have risk forecasts for costs, profits and budgets? One approach we proposed in this summary is to re-solve the optimization models based on assumed statistical distributions of given parameters. If these distributions were not available, a two-stage stochastic optimization approach can be used to provide priority lists to decision-makers to support better risk-informed decisions [4, 5]. In this summary, we will only focus on the first approach.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Novel, Simplified Air Delivery System Design Gets Commercialized

Typical air delivery systems require contractors to design systems that are complex, difficult to integrate into the framing and structural components of a home, and often do not meet the optimization demands of newer energy-efficient homes. This complex process can be a burden to already strained construction labor costs. However, a new technology simplifies duct system design to improve comfort and eliminate sources of installation error for residential air delivery systems.

Building America↗
DOE OSTI2020

Novel, Simplified Air Delivery System Design Gets Commercialized

Typical air delivery systems require contractors to design systems that are complex, difficult to integrate into the framing and structural components of a home, and often do not meet the optimization demands of newer energy-efficient homes. This complex process can be a burden to already strained construction labor costs. However, a new technology simplifies duct system design to improve comfort and eliminate sources of installation error for residential air delivery systems.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
DOE OSTI2020

CITRC Cable Info

Working on a DOE project with university sub-contractors to build power grid simulations. We need the cable size and spacing to build accurate models. Other related documents on the physical set up and electrical components have been released, INL/MIS-20-59900 and INL/MIS-20-60003.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

FY 2021 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan

The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. This FY 2021 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan (SSP) was developed to enable and sustain Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) mission to discover, demonstrate, and secure innovative nuclear solutions, clean energy options, and critical infrastructure. The SSP was developed according to the narrative requirements from the “FY 2021 DOE Site Sustainability Plan Guidance” document issued in August 2020. The SSP contains strategies and activities that will lead to continual energy, water, and waste reductions that move INL toward meeting DOE sustainability goals and requirements. The SSP summarizes energy and available fuel use reporting requirements and references criteria for instituting sustainable design. SSP requirements are integrated into each INL contractor’s Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System (EMS). Finally, the Sustainability Program directives, based on this SSP, are integrated into the INL Annual Laboratory Plan Fiscal Year 2020 (INL/LTD-20-59747), and operations and acquisition systems.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

DOE Award No.: DE-FE0023919 Phase 4 Scientific/Technical Report

This is the Phase 4 Report for the ‘Deepwater Methane Hydrate Characterization and Scientific Assessment or Genesis of Methane Hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM2)’ research project (DOE Award No. DE-FE0023919). The report summarizes activities from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020. The project is led by the University of Texas at Austin (UT). The project objective is to gain insight into the nature, formation, occurrence and physical properties of methane hydrate-bearing sediments for the purpose of methane hydrate resource appraisal through the planning and execution of drilling, coring, logging, testing and analytical activities that assess the geologic occurrence, regional context, and characteristics of marine methane hydrate deposits in the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf (OCS). We published a dedicated American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin volume describing initial results from the UT-GOM2-1 expedition in Sept. 2020. This is part 1 of a multi-volume commitment by AAPG to this project. We further confirmed that the natural gas in hydrate at GC-955 was formed by primary microbial processes (>76.1 %). The in-situ effective permeability hydrate-bearing sandy silts at the GC-955 reservoir ranges from 0.1 md (1.0×10-16 m2) to 2.4 md (2.4×10-15m2) in cores with 83% to 93% hydrate saturation. The intrinsic permeability (the single phase permeability) is estimated from reconstituted samples to be ~12 md (1.2×10-14 m2) to ~41 md (4.1×10-14 m2). We used observation and models to interpret that the core degradation that is found in pressure cores is due to dissociation of the methane hydrate in the outer circumference of the core and dissolution of that methane into the fresh pore water that the core is stored with. We are designing approaches to minimize this core loss in the future. We spent an enormous amount of effort to further improve the ability of the pressure coring tool (the PCTB) to pressure seal correctly. We completed upgrading the upper section of the PCTB to address poor pressure. We successful tested the modifications at Geotek’s test facility in Salt Lake City (Bench Test II). We completed a Land Test of the PCTB at the Schlumberger Cameron Test and Training Facility (CTTF). The tool did not seal in 6 out of 7 tests and we clearly demonstrated that cuttings were wedging in the ball valve assembly, keeping the ball valve from sealing. We reproduced the failure mechanism observed during the land test at Salt Lake City and confirmed the sensitivity of the ball valve assembly to grit. Geotek designed and tested 9 modifications to address this issue and the PCTB is now 100% successfully sealing in the presence of grit. Our science expedition is scheduled for spring 2022 and we are fully focused on preparing for this. UT and Ohio State completed a Shallow Hazard Assessment report for each proposed UT-GOM2-2 drilling location, pursuant to 30 CFR 250.214(f) and 250.244 (f). The Shallow Hazard Reports will accompany the UT-GOM2-2 Exploration Plan that is submitted to BOEM, and completes the geological and geophysical analysis for UT-GOM2-2 permitting efforts. We updated the UT-GOM2-2 Operations Plan (Version 1). We completed the UT-GOM2-2 Science and Sample Distribution Plan (Version 1). We evaluated the scope, budget, and schedule that would result from using a commercial vessel. We developed detailed drilling schedule, mud volume, and resource estimates. We developed a vessel specification document and a well plan, and sent these documents to prospective vessel contractors.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Installer Badges Toolkit

As the focus on home energy efficiency grows, the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) are collaborating with the home energy retrofit industry to support the development of skilled workers. The Installer Badges Toolkit provides a flexible, customizable, and voluntary approach to training and skills recognition for WAP implementers, utility programs, private sector workers, and contractors.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Anaerobic Digestion Implementation at Dairies in Colorado

Anaerobic digestion (AD) of animal manure to produce biogas (methane) fuel has a wide variety of environmental benefits to air and water quality in addition to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, the resulting biogas fuel and digestate products can help meet the energy needs and provide revenue to the farm. This case study explores the potential benefits and drawbacks of implementing an AD system at the Aurora Organic Dairy (AOD) High Plains Complex in Gill, Colorado. The project is envisioned as digester located at the AOD Complex with a single feed stream of manure from the Complex. The project would be implemented by a third-party contractor who would build and operate the system and pay the dairy a fraction of the profits, in addition to providing by-products such as digestate solids and liquids for fertilizer.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Consumer Guide to Air Sealing the Home

Learn how air sealing can improve your home's energy efficiency, comfort, and durability. This fact sheet from Energy Saver includes information on proper ventilation, why to air seal, how to find and seal air leaks, working with contractors to seal your home, and materials to do-it-yourself.

air sealing, air leaks, caulking, weatherstripping↗