SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This document reports on the findings of an inventory of the educational and workforce development resources in a four-county area on the I-91 corridor in Connecticut. The overarching goal of this exercise is to help the local workforce leaders in Bridgeport, Connecticut to optimize their training programs to support the county's clean energy transition. The inventory generally finds that Fairfield County, where Bridgeport is located, lacks adequate education and training programs compared to other surrounding counties with similar populations. More than half of Fairfield County's programs occur through high school or career technical education programs, suggesting that there are minimal opportunities for workers who are not currently high school students. Much of the existing focus within Fairfield County is on general construction or plumbing and electrical skills. There is room to expand by offering more programs focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy skills. The document outlines some potential next steps and questions for consideration for the local workforce leaders in Bridgeport. Bridgeport is a city located within Fairfield County in southwestern Connecticut. It is the largest city in Connecticut with an estimated population of 150,000. Through the Department of Energy-funded Communities LEAP program, NREL conducted an analysis of existing education and workforce development (EWD) programs located in Fairfield County that align with (or could support) the worker pipeline for occupations related to building energy efficiency (EE), renewable energy (RE), and clean energy manufacturing. The analysis also looked at EWD offerings in other counties in Connecticut as a point of comparison.
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. 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
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
As of March 2021, the State of Florida, U.S.A. had accounted for approximately 6.67% of total COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus disease) cases in the U.S. The main objective of this research is to analyze mobility patterns during a three month period in summer 2020, when COVID-19 case numbers were very high for three Florida counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. To investigate patterns, as well as drivers, related to changes in mobility across the tri-county region, a random forest regression model was built using sociodemographic, travel, and built environment factors, as well as COVID-19 positive case data. Mobility patterns declined in each county when new COVID-19 infections began to rise, beginning in mid-June 2020. While the mean number of bar and restaurant visits was lower overall due to closures, analysis showed that these visits remained a top factor that impacted mobility for all three counties, even with a rise in cases. Our modeling results suggest that there were mobility pattern differences between counties with respect to factors relating, for example, to race and ethnicity (different population groups factored differently in each county), as well as social distancing or travel-related factors (e.g., staying at home behaviors) over the two time periods prior to and after the spike of COVID-19 cases.
The authors regret that there is an incomplete sentence in the abstract of the article, and request that the portion “, and counties incre” be deleted from the abstract (found at the end of the sentence beginning with “However …”). The portion to be deleted is underlined and bolded below. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Current abstract: Though rural local governments are central actors in renewable energy development, local governments in the United States (US) remain systematically under-funded. This paper considers what the manifestations of austerity in local governments broadly and rural localities specifically mean for renewable energy development and for energy transitions. Drawing on a survey of 262 elected county officials with experience with wind energy in eight US states, this paper asks how local officials understand the impacts of wind development, how local governments are involved in wind energy negotiations, how the resources and expertise needed to navigate negotiations are distributed among counties, and analyze the relationship between local capacity, access to resources, and involvement in negotiations. We find that local officials express simultaneously affective and material concerns with the impacts of wind development and see negotiations with the developer as central to realizing local benefits. However, the expertise and staffing needed to negotiate with developers is less accessible to poorer or sparsely populated counties, and counties with lower overall revenues have narrower scopes of negotiation, and counties incre. Our results suggest that uneven rural capacity heightens an already asymmetrical relationship between localities and developers. In analyzing how infrastructure developments are shaped by relationships between localities and developers that are conditioned by austerity and (under)capacity, this paper contributes to and bridges scholarly discussions on rural austerity, rescaling, and renewable energy transitions. These results challenge conventional wisdoms around centralizing energy siting processes, contextualize popular and academic debates about opposition to renewable energy development, and highlight the need for rural reinvestment to realize meaningfully participatory energy developments.
After decades of increasing cancer mortality, U.S. rates declined from 1991 to 2019, a 32% decrease. we investigated rates of cancer mortality improvement across 2954 counties and selected characteristics associated with mortality improvements. Data was 21,381,009 county-level neoplasm deaths gleaned from death certificates via CDC WONDER. Analytical techniques included GIS and Moran’s I, OLS, GWR models, and trend comparisons. Counties with the greatest improvement (reduction) in cancer mortality tended to be coastal, higher-income, metropolitan locations. OLS model (R 2 = 0.65) indicated that greatest improvements were observed in counties with higher initial mortality ($\beta =.32$) closely followed by percent urban ($\beta =.31$) and median household income ($\beta =.16$). Whereas percent Black residents ($\beta =-.06$), and percent with education beyond high school ($\beta =-.10$) was less associated on outcomes. Highest income counties were the first to experience improvement in cancer mortality, the highest rates of mortality decline, and the greatest reduction in excess deaths. Even though there was significant improvement in cancer mortality nationally, there were variations in the degree of improvement linked to county location, income, and urbanisation. These results underlie the need to expand place-based initiatives designed to advance cancer health and more equitable improvements in cancer mortality outcomes.
Abstract The United States federal government has invested $7.5 billion into charging infrastructure, including the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, to build fast charging stations along designated highways for long-distance car travel. We develop a consecutive coverage metric to compute the percent of United States roads (traffic-weighted) that are consecutively accessible within 500 miles of each county. We answer (1) what the state of consecutive coverage is in each county and (2) what the increase in coverage is when designated highways receive fast chargers. In 2023, 10% of counties had at least 75% minimum viable coverage. We find that if all designated highways receive fast-charging stations, 94% of United States counties will reach at least 75% fast charger coverage. However, the remaining counties are rural. This demonstrates that federal funding for fast chargers will help connect most—but not all—counties to the national network of continuously accessible charging stations.
Background: As conscientious vaccination exemption (CVE) percentages rise across the United States, so does the risk and occurrence of outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles. In the state of Texas, the median CVE percentage across school systems more than doubled between 2012 and 2018. During this period, the proportion of schools surpassing a CVE percentage of 3% rose from 2% to 6% for public schools, 20% to 26% for private schools, and 17% to 22% for charter schools. The aim of this study was to investigate this phenomenon at a fine scale. Methods and findings: Here, we use beta regression models to study the socioeconomic and geographic drivers of CVE trends in Texas. Using annual counts of CVEs at the school system level from the 2012–2013 to the 2017–2018 school year, we identified county-level predictors of median CVE percentage among public, private, and charter schools, the proportion of schools below a high-risk threshold for vaccination coverage, and five-year trends in CVEs. Since the 2012–2013 school year, CVE percentages have increased in 41 out of 46 counties in the top 10 metropolitan areas of Texas. We find that 77.6% of the variation in CVE percentages across metropolitan counties is explained by median income, the proportion of the population that holds a bachelor's degree, the proportion of the population that self-reports as ethnically white, the proportion of the population that is English speaking, and the proportion of the population that is under the age of five years old. Across the 10 top metropolitan areas in Texas, counties vary considerably in the proportion of school systems reporting CVE percentages above 3%. Sixty-six percent of that variation is explained by the proportion of the population that holds a bachelor’s degree and the proportion of the population affiliated with a religious congregation. Three of the largest metropolitan areas—Austin, Dallas–Fort Worth, and Houston—are potential vaccination exemption "hotspots," with over 13% of local school systems above this risk threshold. The major limitations of this study are inconsistent school-system-level CVE reporting during the study period and a lack of geographic and socioeconomic data for individual private schools. Conclusions: In this study, we have identified high-risk communities that are typically obscured in county-level risk assessments and found that public schools, like private schools, are exhibiting predictable increases in vaccination exemption percentages. As public health agencies confront the reemerging threat of measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases, findings such as ours can guide targeted interventions and surveillance within schools, cities, counties, and sociodemographic subgroups.
The 1997/1998 Regional Travel—Household Interview Survey was conducted in the 28-county New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan area, including 12 counties in New York, 14 counties in New Jersey, and 2 counties in Connecticut. The study was jointly funded by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). The purpose of the survey was to provide information suitable for gaining an in-depth understanding of the travel behavior of households and individuals, as well as the activities, demographics, and other factors that affect such behavior. The survey was a diary-type travel survey, in which detailed travel information and basic demographic and socioeconomic features were collected for each member of the 11,264 participating households during an entire travel day. The sample for analysis of resident-based weekday travel is 10,971 for the entire 28-county metro area. The weekend sample, comprised of 275 households, is restricted to the NJTPA counties of northern New Jersey and compliments the results of the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey for the entire area.
The 1990 St. Louis Region Travel Survey was performed in the fall of 1990 for the St. Louis region. The study was done for the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., with assistance from NSI Research Group. The area surveyed included the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and parts of Jefferson County, Madison County, St. Clair County, Monroe County, and St. Charles County. The survey was used primarily for the calibration of trip production models. Other uses will include the calibration of trip attraction models and trip distribu¬tion models. The total number of completed, useable household samples for the survey area totaled 1,446.